Wing and Fuselage Structural Optimization Considering Alternative Material

Wing and Fuselage Structural Optimization Considering Alternative Material Systems By Jonathan Lusk B.S.A.E.
, University of Kansas, 2006
Submitted to the Department of Aerospace Engineering and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Engineering. ______________________________ Professor in Charge-Dr. Mark Ewing
______________________________ Dr. Richard Hale
______________________________ Dr. Stan Rolfe
___________________ Date Project Accepted
The Thesis Committee for Jonathan Lusk Certifies that this is the approved Version of the following thesis:
Wing and Fuselage Optimization Considering Alternative Material Systems
Committee:
______________________________ Professor in Charge-Dr. Mark Ewing
______________________________ Dr. Richard Hale
______________________________ Dr. Stan Rolfe
___________________ Date defended
Abstract
This study is a sensitivity analysis to compare weight benefits for a transport aircraft airframe from potential mechanical property enhancements of CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic) Laminate and Aluminum Alloy. The computational framework is based on a simplified skin-stringer-frame/rib configuration to model the fuselage and the wings of a generic narrow and wide body jet transport. Simple (Strength of Materials) mechanics were used to predict the stresses in the skin and stringers. Strength allowables and panel buckling equations are used in conjunction with an iterative optimizer to calculate the structural airframe weight. The baseline materials include 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloy and a fictitious intermediate modulus carbon epoxy. For the CFRP material, the optimized weight results show Open Hole compression enhancement produces the most weight benefit. The Fatigue strength is the most sensitive material property for the baseline Aluminum Alloy structure. The results also indicate that the current CFRP laminate minimum gauge limits weight reduction from potential material property enhancements especially on the small jet transport.
ii
Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to thank my academic advisor Dr. Mark Ewing for his guidance, assistance, advice, and support throughout my project. I would also like to thank Dr. Mark Ewing for teaching me the fundamentals of structural optimization and introducing me to computational resources to conduct my analysis. Id like to thank Dr. Abdel Abusafieh and Cytec Engineering Materials for providing funding for my research and also providing me their time, information, and resources for me to carryout my analysis. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Abdel Abusafieh for taking the time to review my documentation and results and discussing as well as enlightening me on the interest and concerns of the industry. Id like to thank Dr. Richard Hale for teaching me the mechanics and design of composite materials and making me aware of details that should be considered in this type of analysis. Id like to thank Dr. Stan Rolfe for teaching me the factors that pertain to a complete fatigue analysis and for kindly participating in my examination board committee.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... iii List of Figure ............................................................................................................. vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xii Nomenclature ........................................................................................................... xiv 1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 2 Objective ....................................................................................................... 1 Prior Work .................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 Geometry....................................................................................................... 4 Wing ..................................................................................................... 4 Fuselage.............................................................................................. 10 Stiffened Panel Geometry ........................................................................... 11 Wing ................................................................................................... 12 Fuselage.............................................................................................. 15 Loads........................................................................................................... 18 Wing ................................................................................................... 18 Fuselage.............................................................................................. 27 Stress Analysis ............................................................................................ 33 Thin Walled Idealized Beam Theory (Ref 2).................................. 33 Hoop and Longitudinal Stress (Ref 5)............................................. 35
iv
2.4.3 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 3
Buckling Analysis.............................................................................. 36 Materials ..................................................................................................... 51 CFRP.................................................................................................. 51 CFRP Lamination Scheme of Aircraft Structure .......................... 52 Aluminum .......................................................................................... 54 Material Enhancement Analysis Cases........................................... 55 Failure Modes and Criteria ......................................................................... 57 CFRP.................................................................................................. 57 Aluminum Alloy ................................................................................ 60 Optimization ............................................................................................... 61 Optimized Variables ......................................................................... 61 Fixed Variables.................................................................................. 61 Concept of Minimum Gauge............................................................ 63 Discretization..................................................................................... 63 Optimization...................................................................................... 70
Verification ......................................................................................................... 78 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 Regression Analysis.................................................................................... 78 Wing ................................................................................................... 80 Fuselage.............................................................................................. 83 Finite Element............................................................................................. 86 Wing ................................................................................................... 86 Fuselage.............................................................................................. 89
4 5 6
Results and Discussion...................................................................................... 92 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 109 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 110
References................................................................................................................ 112 A B C D Appendix........................................................................................................... A.1 Appendix............................................................................................................B.1 Appendix............................................................................................................C.1 Appendix........................................................................................................... D.1
vi
List of Figure
Figure 2.1: Wing Plan form with Kick ......................................................................... 4 Figure 2.2: Wing Chord Distribution............................................................................ 6 Figure 2.3 Wingbox and Wing Planform...................................................................... 7 Figure 2.4: Illustration of Wingbox Thickness Taper (this in not a configuration concept illustration and there is no rib geometry displayed in this figure)................... 8 Figure 2.5: Fuselage Geometry................................................................................... 10 Figure 2.6: "I" beam Section Stiffened Panel ............................................................. 12 Figure 2.7: Geometry of an "I"-Beam Section Stiffener............................................. 13 Figure 2.8: "Hat"-Section Stiffened Panel .................................................................. 15 Figure 2.9:Geometry of a Hat Stiffener ...................................................................... 16 Figure 2.10: Generic Load Profile for 2.5g Positive Maneuver ................................. 18 Figure 2.11: Generic Load Profile for Negative 1.0g Gust......................................... 19 Figure 2.12: Trapezoidal Lift Distribution (1g Steady Level Flight) ......................... 20 Figure 2.13: Elliptical Lift Distribution (1g Steady Level Flight).............................. 20 Figure 2.14: Plot of Trapezoid and Elliptic Chord Distribution ................................ 21 Figure 2.15: Lift Distribution...................................................................................... 21 Figure 2.16: Wing Structural Weight Distribution ..................................................... 23 Figure 2.17: Fuel in Wing Weight Distribution.......................................................... 24 Figure 2.18: Distributed Load Summary Profile of Positive 2.5g maneuver (does not include engine point load)........................................................................................... 25
vii
Figure 2.19: Shear and Moment Diagram (Positive 2.5g maneuver) ......................... 26 Figure 2.20: Correction for Wing Sweep Illustration ................................................. 27 Figure 2.21: Fuselage Structure Loading Modeled as Cantilever Beam .................... 29 Figure 2.22: Shear and Moment Distribution for Fuselage Load Case 1 ( Positive 2.5g Maneuver) ................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 2.23: Shear and Moment Distribution for Fuselage Load Case 2 (Negative 2.0g Hard Landing)............................................................................................................. 32 Figure 2.24: Stiffened Panels on the Wing Box Skin ................................................. 37 Figure 2.25: Principal Stress Components of Pure Shear Buckling (Ref 2)............... 39 Figure 2.26: Bending Buckling Illustration (Ref 7).................................................... 40 Figure 2.27: Compression Shear Buckling Interaction (Ref 7) .................................. 42 Figure 2.28: One Edge Free Crippling (logarithmic scale) (Ref 4) ........................... 45 Figure 2.29: No Edge Free Crippling (logarithmic scale) (Ref 4).............................. 45 Figure 2.30: Crippling Curves .................................................................................... 46 Figure 2.31: Skin Buckled Stiffened Panel and Effective Width Illustration............. 49 Figure 2.32: Lumping Areas on the Wing Box........................................................... 65 Figure 2.33:Generic Axial Stress and Skin Thickness Relationship .......................... 73 Figure 2.34: Generic Buckling Stability and Axial Stress vs Skin Thickness Relationship ................................................................................................................ 75 Figure 2.35: Optimization Flow Chart (example for fuselage)................................... 77 Figure 3.1: Linear Regression Correlation between PDCYL and Calculated Results 81
viii
Figure 3.2: :Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Load Bearing Weight and Calculated Results....................................................................................................... 81 Figure 3.3: Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Primary Weight and Calculated Results....................................................................................................... 82 Figure 3.4: : Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Total Structural Weight and Calculated Results................................................................................................ 82 Figure 3.5: Linear Regression Correlation between PDCYL and Calculated Model Results......................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 3.6: Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Load Bearing Weight and Calculated Model Results ........................................................................................... 84 Figure 3.7: Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Primary Weight and Calculated Model Results ........................................................................................... 84 Figure 3.8: Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Total Structural Weight and Calculated Model Results .................................................................................... 85 Figure 3.9: Wing Finite Element Geometry ............................................................... 86 Figure 3.10: Axial Stress in Skin ................................................................................ 87 Figure 3.11: Top Skin Element ID Numbers .............................................................. 87 Figure 3.12: Axial and Shear Stresses in Elements 4213 and 4214 (F06 file)........ 88 Figure 3.13: Axial and Shear Stress from Model ....................................................... 88 Figure 3.14: Axial Stress............................................................................................. 89 Figure 3.15: Axial Stress from Model ........................................................................ 90 Figure 3.16: Shear Stress ............................................................................................ 91
ix
Figure 3.17: Shear Stress Calculated in Model........................................................... 91 Figure 4.1: Percent Load Bearing Structural Weight Benifit of CFRP over Aluminum for a Range of Potential Fatigue Performance........................................................... 96 Figure 4.2: Skin Thickness Design Stress Relationship ............................................. 98 Figure 4.3: Failure Mode Distribution on Wing Structure for Wide and Narrow body (CFRP Baseline and all cases except for narrow body Improved Composite 1)........ 99 Figure 4.4: Failure Mode Distribution for Narrow Body Wing (CFRP Improved Composite 1)............................................................................................................. 100 Figure 4.5: Failure Mode Distribution on Wide Body Fuselage (CFRP) ................. 101 Figure 4.6: Failure Mode Distribution on Narrow Body Fuselage (CFRP) ............. 102 Figure 4.7: Failure Mode Distribution for Wide Body and Narrow Body Wing (Aluminum)............................................................................................................... 105 Figure 4.8: Failure Mode Distribution for Wide Body Fuselage (Aluminum)......... 107 Figure 4.9: : Failure Mode Distribution for Narrow Body Fuselage (Aluminum) ... 108 Figure A.1: Medium Body Jet Transport.................................................................. A.1 Figure A.2: V-N Diagram Specifications for Military Airplanes (Ref 6)................. A.2 Figure B.1:WB Wing Running Loads .......................................................................B.5 Figure B.2: NB Wing Running Loads .......................................................................B.5 Figure B.3: Crippling of CFRP Laminate "I"-Section Beam With Ex=14.5Msi.......B.6 Figure B.4: Euler Column Buckling of CFRP Laminate Ex=14.5Msi .....................B.7 Figure B.5: Radius of Gyration for Euler Buckling Calculation with Contribution of Effective Width..........................................................................................................B.8
Figure C.1: 7075 Aluminum Alloy Mechanical Properties (Ref 4)...........................C.1 Figure C.2: "K" Values for Compression and Shear Panel Buckling (Ref 7) ...........C.2 Figure C.3: Stiffness Correction ................................................................................C.3 Figure D.1: Illustration of Fuselage Modeled as Idealized Tube.............................. D.1 Figure D.2: Optimized Thicknesses for Fuselage Section 46................................... D.1 Figure D.3: Lateral Cut of Fuselage as a Idealized Tube ......................................... D.3 Figure D.4: Center of Mass (in)................................................................................ D.4 Figure D.5: Second Moment of Area (in4)............................................................... D.5 Figure D.6: Internal Loads (shear(lbs), moment(lbs*in))......................................... D.6 Figure D.7: Maximum and Minimum Principle Stress in Crown (psi) .................... D.7 Figure D.8: Minimum Principle Stress in Belly (psi) ............................................... D.8 Figure D.9: Max In-plane Shear Stress (psi) .......................................................... D.10 Figure D.10: Idealized Stringer Section.................................................................. D.11 Figure D.11: Crippling Stress of Belly Stringer ..................................................... D.13 Figure D.12: Geometry of Hat Stiffener ................................................................. D.13 Figure D.13: Hat Stiffener Including Effective Width ........................................... D.16 Figure D.14: Belly Stringer Buckling Strength ...................................................... D.17 Figure D.15: Output for WB CFRP Baseline ......................................................... D.19
xi
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Wing Model Geometry Values.................................................................... 9 Table 2.2: Fuselage Model Geometry Values............................................................. 11 Table 2.3: Wing Stiffened Panel Geometry Values (CFRP) ...................................... 12 Table 2.4: Wing Striffened Panel Geometry Values (Aluminum) ............................. 12 Table 2.5: Wing Stringer Geometry (CFRP) .............................................................. 14 Table 2.6: Wing Stringer Geometry (Aluminum)....................................................... 14 Table 2.7: Fuselage Stiffened Panel Geometry Values (CFRP) ................................. 15 Table 2.8: Fuselage Stiffened Panel Geometry Values (Aluminum) ......................... 15 Table 2.9:Fuselage Stringer Geometry (CFRP).......................................................... 17 Table 2.10: Fuselage Stringer Geometry (Aluminum) ............................................... 17 Table 2.11: Fuel Weight Breakdown .......................................................................... 24 Table 2.12: CFRP Lamina Properties ......................................................................... 51 Table 2.13: CFRP Laminate Properties ...................................................................... 52 Table 2.14: 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloy Properties...................................................... 55 Table 3.1: Wing Regression Analysis Data ................................................................ 80 Table 3.2: Fuselage Regression Analysis Data........................................................... 83 Table 4.1: CFRP Baseline and Enhanced Material Weights (% Structural Weight Reduction)................................................................................................................... 93 Table 4.2: Aluminum Baseline and Enhanced Material Weights (% Structural Weight Reduction)................................................................................................................... 94
xii
Table 4.3: Stiffened and Un-stiffened Structural Weights.......................................... 95
xiii
Nomenclature
English Symbol [A] [C] [D] [LB] [UB] {b} a A ai b bc bf bw c D Dmn E F Description Linear Inequality Constraint Matrix Non-Linear Constraint Matrix Laminate Flexure Stiffness Matrix Optimization Lower Bound Optimization Upper Bound Non-linear Inequality Limit Stiffened Panel Length Cross Section Area Discrete Lumped Area Wing Span Stiffener Cap Panel Width Stiffener Flange Width Stiffener Web Width Wing Chord Fuselage Diameter Flexural Stiffness Matrix Term Elastic Modulus Stress (Military Handbook Notation) Units ~ ~ in-lb ~ ~ ~ in. in2 in2 ft in in in ft ft in-lb psi psi
xiv
f g I
Optimization Cost Function Inequality Constraint Second Moment of Area Distance to Wing Kick (in percent% wing half
in2 ~ in4
k l L L' M n p q Q R S T t V W w x y
span) Fuselage Length Length of Longitudinal Stiffener Distributed Lift Internal Moment Load Load Factor Net Distributed Load Shear Flow First Moment of Area Critical Buckling Stress Ratio Wing Planform Surface Area Gross Engine Thrust Thickness Internal Shear Load Weight Thin Plate Deflection Structure Axial Coordinate Structure Lateral Coordinate
~ ft in. lb/in lb-in ~ lb/in lb/in in3 ~ ft2 lb in lb lb in. ft in.
xv
Acronyms AR M.S. OHC OHT S.F. W.S. PDCYL
Description Wing Aspect Ratio Margin of Safety Open Hole Compression Strength Open Hole Tension Strength Safety Factor Wing Station NASA's Structural Weight Estimate ~ ~ psi psi ~ ft
Greek Symbol t
Description Change in Stress Allowable Change in Thickness Taper Ratio Sweep Angle Poisson's Ratio Stiffener Web Inclination Angle Radius of Gyration Axial or Transverse Stress Shear Stress psi in. ~ Degrees ~ Degrees in. psi psi
xvi
Subscript 0 1 2
Description Initial Value Maximum Principal Direction/Fiber Direction Minimum Principal Direction/Transverse Direction Laminate Flexural Stiffness Response to In-Plane Bending
11
Strain Laminate Flexural Stiffness Response to Transverse
12
Bending Strain Laminate Transverse Flexural Response to Transverse
22
Bending Strain Laminate Torsional Flexure Response to In-Plane Torsional
66 1,2i 12su 1cu 1tu
Strain Principal Stress of a Discrete Lumped Area Lamina Ultimate Shear Strength Lamina Ultimate Compression Strength in Fiber Direction Lamina Ultimate Tensile Strength in Fiber Direction Lamina Ultimate Compression Strength Transverse to Fiber
2cu
Direction Lamina Ultimate Tensile Strength Transverse to Fiber
2tu All b
Direction Allowable Stress Bending Stress
xvii
c cc CL cr cr_stiff cu Design e engine/pylon exp
Compression Stress Crippling Strength Wing Center Line Critical Buckling Strength Critical Bucklng Strength of Stiffener Ultimate Compression Strength Design Stress Effective Length Engine and Pylon Weight Exposed Wing Area Fracture Margin of Safety/Flange Width/ Forward Fuselage
f fi Fract_sk_Bottom Fract_sk_Top Fract_st_Bottom Fract_st_Top Fracture_Allowable fuselage G GTO h
Location/Fiber Volume Final Thickness of Discrete Structural Area Critical Fracture of Bottom Skin Critical Fracture of Top Skin Critical Fracture of Bottom Stiffener Critical Fracture of Top Stiffener Fracture Strength Fuselage Cross Secitonal Area Center of Area Gross Takeoff Weight High Relative Stress Range
xviii
Discrete Area, Thickness or Stress Notation
xix
Subscript kick l L LE Limit Linear MGTO Non-Linear OHC OHT oi p r r_wb ref s skin Spar_Caps Spar_Webs stiff
Description Wing Thickness/Depth at Wing Kick Low Relative Stress Range Longitudinal Stress Ratio Leading Edge Sweep/ Swept Span Stress at Limit Load Linear Inequality Constraint Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight Non-Linear Inequality Constraint Open Hole Compression Strength Open Hole Tension Strength Initial Thickness of Discrete Lumped Structure Panel Geometry Root Chord/Thickness Root Chord of Wing Box Reference Shear Stress Ratio Fuselage Cross Section Skin Area Wing Cross Section Spar Caps Area Wing Cross Section Spar Web Area Stress in Stiffener
xx
stringers su t t_wb tu wing x
Wing/Fuselage Cross Section Stringer Area Shear Ultimate Tip Chord/Thickness Tip Chord of Wing Box Tensile Ultimate Wing Cross Section Area In-Plane Axial Mechanical Properties/Stress In-Plane Axial Mechanical Properties/Stress of Discrete
xi xy
Structure In-Plane Shear Mechanical Properties/Stress In-Plane Shear Mechanical Properties/Stress of Discrete
xyi y
Structure Transverse Axial Mechanical Properties/Stress Lateral First/Second Moment of Area (Referenced Text
z z_LC1 z_LC2
Notation) Vertical Load Factor for Load Case 1 Vertical Load Factor for Load Case 2 Lateral First/Second Moment of Area (Referenced Text
zz
Notation)
xxi
1 Introduction
1.1 Objective
The main objective of this study is to determine if potential mechanical property enhancements of CFRP material would lend themselves to the application on smaller transport aircraft, referred to as the narrow body aircraft. This is determined by identifying and comparing critical failure modes of CFRP and Aluminum Alloys on medium and small commercial jet transport. It is currently known that CFRP materials show benefits over Aluminum Alloys for current medium jet transport aircraft, referred to as the wide body aircraft. This study is a weight sensitivity analysis only and does not take into account factors such as Acquisition and Life Cycle cost and is not intended to compare Aluminum Alloy to CFRP Laminate materials. The general questions that this analysis addresses are:
How does the weight performance benefits from the application of CFRP and Aluminum Alloy on a medium transport aircraft compare with that on a small transport aircraft?
What CFRP material enhancements offer the most weight benefit on the wide and narrow body aircraft and what are the critical failure modes?
What Aluminum Alloy material enhancements offer the most weight benefit on the wide and narrow body aircraft and what are the critical failure modes?
This study presents a method of estimating the wing box and fuselage geometry from fundamental preliminary design parameters. Also presented is an analytical method using optimization to evaluate the weight benefits of altering the material properties of the structure. This optimization model will be useful in studying the effects and limitations of enhancing aspect of a unidirectional material on the wing and fuselage structure. This method determines the primary load bearing structural mass by sizing the skin and the stringers, but not the fuselage frames or wing ribs. The only input parameters in this analysis are mechanical properties of the material. Therefore there is not a configuration trade study included and the configuration concept is fixed, though the dimensions of the structural concept are optimized for the specific baseline material and transport aircraft size.
1.2 Prior Work

A parallel study was found in a NASA Technical Memorandum Titled: Analytical Fuselage and Wing Weight Estimation of Transport Aircraft. The document presents an methodical procedure in defining the structure geometry, loads, and failure criteria in order to estimate the structural load, similar to the procedure presented in this document. Unlike this study, the procedure does not include
compression and shear buckling interaction, sub-structure of different in-plane stiffness, and did not study I-beam and Hat-section stiffened concepts. It does include, unlike this study, curvature of fuselage geometry, deflection analysis, the sizing and weight of fuselage frames and wing ribs, and the study of Z section and Sandwich Honeycomb stiffened configurations.
The technical memorandum tabulates the actual structural weights of eight Aluminum Alloy transport aircrafts and compares the weights with the calculated structural weight of their model. This study uses those published weights to verify the optimized weight calculations for the eight transport aircraft using the optimized model documented in this study. The results are presented in the verification section.
2 Methodology
2.1 Geometry 2.1.1 Wing
The wing planform geometry for a transport aircraft is estimated using Figure A.1 in Appendix A. Figure A.1 shows that the wing does not have a straight taper, but a kick from the edge of the fuselage to the position where the engine attaches to the wing. The wing planform with the kick is illustrated in Figure 2.1. The kick k , which is given as a fraction of the half span, is located where there is a geometry transition and the wing taper is discontinuous.
D 2
Fuselage Wall
(Root)
LE
c CL
cr
b 2
ct
Figure 2.1: Wing Plan form with Kick
Figure 2.1 illustrates the geometry for the wing for the wide body jet transport. The known wing geometry includes the Aspect ratio AR , span b , and leading edge sweep LE . The wing reference surface area S ref is determined from the aspect ratio and span in Equation 1. The span, reference surface area, and the chord distribution for the wide body, presented in Figure 2.2, is used to calculate the mean geometric chord c . The formula used to calculate mean geometric chord is shown in Equation 2. This chord distribution is determined from Figure A.1 in Appendix A. Since the chord distribution is known the root chord c r and the tip chord ct are known. Figure 2.1 shows that the leading edge has a constant sweep. The quarter chord sweep c 4 is determined by Equation 3. The exposed wing reference area
S exp is equal to the reference wing area minus the referenced wing area within the
fuselage diameter (or fuselage wall) shown in Figure 2.2.
( 1)
b2 AR = S ref
( 2)
b 2
c=
2 S ref
c
0
dy
( 3)
tan c =
4
c( y )
3 tan LE 4
cCL
cr
ct
D 2
k
b 2
Figure 2.2: Wing Chord Distribution
The wing box structure extends the span of the wing and the width of the wing box is a fraction of the chord for a specific wing station. The wing box is shown within the geometry of the wing planform in Figure 2.3. It is assumed for simplicity of analysis that the center of the wing box is located at the quarter chord of the wing planform which is also assumed to be the location of the aerodynamic center and center of pressure. This implied that the aerodynamic resultant force is located at the center of the wing box and that there is no pitching moment on the wing. The configurations for the wide and narrow body transport structures are both two spar concepts with rib spacing indicated by the stiffened panel geometry length.
c r _ wb
cr
c t _ wb
ct
Figure 2.3 Wingbox and Wing Planform
The wing-box thickness (not to be confused with skin thickness) and wing box with taper transition at the kick is illustrated in Figure 2.4. This is an important detail to recognize because there is a large thickness taper from the root to the kick and a subtle thickness taper from the kick to the tip, which has a large effect on the running load profile distribution over the wing span. There is a beam that runs behind the rear landing gear, from the reference wing planform centerline to the kick this beam is neglected in this analysis because the details needed to size this beam were not readily available. The geometry parameters of the wing are presented in Table 2.1.
Wingbox to fuselage Intersection
Front Spar
tr
t kick
Rear Spar
tt
Figure 2.4: Illustration of Wingbox Thickness Taper (this in not a configuration concept illustration and there is no rib geometry displayed in this figure)
Table 2.1: Wing Model Geometry Values

Parameter Designation Parameter Name and Description Narrrow Body (NB) Value Wide Body (WB) Value
Units lbs ft ft ~ degrees
WGTO b D AR LE ref exp
Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight Wing Span Fuselage Diameter Aspect Ratio, AR=b /Sref Leading Edge Sweep Reference Chord Taper Ratio, ref=ct/cCL Exposed Chord Taper Ratio, exp=ct/cr Thickness to Chord Ratio at Wing Root, (t/c)r= tr/cr Exposed Thickness Ratio, exp= tt/tr Wingbox to Wing Planform Chord Ratio at Root, rr=cr_wb/cr Wingbox to Wing Planform Chord Ratio at Tip, rt=ct_wb/ct Distance to Kick from Wing Root (as fraction of wing half span), kick=k/(b/2) Thickness to Chord Ratio kick, (t/c)k=tkick/ckick
2
123,675 112 13 9.55 40 NA 0.1875 0.10 0.1883
453,000 170 19 9.55 40 NA 0.1875 0.10 0.1883
t c r
exp
rr
0.41
0.41
rt
0.31
0.31
kick
0.254 0.10
0.254 0.10
t c k
2.1.2 Fuselage
The Fuselage is modeled as an un-tapered cylinder neglecting wing and empennage attachment structure. The maximum diameter of the actual fuselage structure is used far the diameter of the cylinder. The length of the cylinder extends from the nose to the tail cone.
WB
19ft
Figure 2.5: Fuselage Geometry
( 4)
l = 0.67WGTO
0.43
(Ref 2)
The fuselage geometry is defined in terms of the fineness ratio l D , and the maximum gross takeoff weight. The length and diameter of the fuselage are illustrated in Figure 2.5. The Gross Takeoff Weight and fuselage slenderness ratio for the wide and narrow body aircraft is given in Table 2.2. Equation 4 estimates the fuselage length from the gross takeoff weight.
10
Table 2.2: Fuselage Model Geometry Values

Parameter Designation WGTO
l D
Parameter Name and Description Gross Takeoff Weight Fuselage Length to Diameter Ratio
Units lb (~)
Narrow Body (NB) Value 123,675 7.8
Wide Body (WB) Value 453,000 9.6
2.2 Stiffened Panel Geometry

In order to compare the stability of the stiffened panels at the proper stress level the stiffener spacing and geometry is found using an iterative process presented in Appendix B. The I-beam section is used to stiffen the wing skin panels and the Hat-section stiffener is used on the fuselage. Figure 2.6 shows an I beam stiffened panel using a finite element modeling software. Figure 2.8 shows a solid model of a hat stiffened panel with the panel width b and panel length a defined.
Tables 2.3 and 2.4 give the wing stiffened panel geometry values for CFRP and Aluminum Alloy respectively. Tables 2.7 and 2.8 give the stiffened panel geometry for the CFRP and Aluminum Alloy fuselage. The stiffened panel geometry is compared for CFRP and Aluminum Alloy for the specific wide or narrow body wing or fuselage structural with the un-stiffened structural weight in the results. The b t stiffener spacing to panel thickness ratio is a function of material stiffness E , stress in the panel x , Poissons ratio , and boundary conditions. The panel width to skin
11
thickness ratio b t should be similar for every like material geometry combination (i.e. The Aluminum Alloy narrow and wide body wing structure).
2.2.1 Wing
Figure 2.6: "I" beam Section Stiffened Panel
Table 2.3: Wing Stiffened Panel Geometry Values (CFRP)

Parameter Designation b a Parameter Name and Description Panel Width Panel Length Narrow Body (NB) Value
7.0 14.0
Units in in
Wide Body (WB) Value 17.0 10.6 34.0 24
Table 2.4: Wing Striffened Panel Geometry Values (Aluminum)

Parameter Designation b a Parameter Name and Description Panel Width Panel Length Narrow Body (NB) Value
2.3 4.6
Units in in
12
Figure 2.7 shows the geometry of the I-section stiffener. The

y i displacements are used as inputs in determining the radius of gyration and effective
width in the model, there values are not tabulated in this section. Table 2.5 and 2.6 give the geometry values of the CFRP and Aluminum Alloy stiffeners for the wing respectively. The stiffener is assumed to be bonded to the wing skin. The I beam stiffener configuration is chosen because it is what is currently being used in industry on a medium transport aircraft with CFRP as its primary load bearing material.
bc
bw
y ct
tw
y
yw
tc y cb
ts
Figure 2.7: Geometry of an "I"-Beam Section Stiffener
13
Table 2.5: Wing Stringer Geometry (CFRP)
Parameter Designation bw bf
Parameter Name and Description Stiffener I-Section Web Width Stiffener I-Section Flange Width
Units in. in.
Narrow Body (NB) Value 1.00 0.55
Wide Body (WB) Value 2.00 1.30
Table 2.6: Wing Stringer Geometry (Aluminum)
Parameter Designation bw bf
Parameter Name and Description Stiffener I-Section Web Width Stiffener I-Section Flange Width
Units in. in.
Narrow Body (NB) Value 0.40 0.25
Wide Body (WB) Value 1.00 0.65
14
2.2.2 Fuselage
Figure 2.8: "Hat"-Section Stiffened Panel
Table 2.7: Fuselage Stiffened Panel Geometry Values (CFRP)
Parameter Designation b a
Parameter Name and Description Panel Width Panel Length
Units in in
Narrow Body (NB) Value

6.3 9.4
Table 2.8: Fuselage Stiffened Panel Geometry Values (Aluminum)
Parameter Designation b a
Parameter Name and Description Panel Width Panel Length
Units in in
Narrow Body (NB) Value

2.5 3.8
15
Figure 2.8 shows the geometry of the Hat-section stiffened panel. The webs of the stiffener are actually at an angle like what is shown in Figure 2.9. The angle of the hat stiffener web is used when determining the radius of gyration of the stiffener. The flange of the stiffener, with width b f in Figure 2.9, is attached to the skin of the fuselage. All flanges are assumed to be bonded to the fuselage skin. Like the Isection stiffener the y i lateral locations of the legs of the stiffener are inputs in the model to compute the radius of gyration and are functions of the stiffener dimensions and the wing or fuselage skin thickness (i.e. f (bi , t ) ). The geometry of the Hatsection stiffener is given in Table 2.9 and 2.10 for the CFRP and Aluminum Alloy material respectively. The Hat-section stiffener is chosen because it is currently being used in industry on a medium transport aircraft with CFRP as its primary load bearing material. The stiffened panel geometry given in this section is a fixed input in the model and is not allowed to vary since the scope of this study is reduced to benefits of the material mechanical properties only. The stiffened panel geometry is optimized prior to the sensitivity analysis.
bc
bw y yc yw yf *yi is lateral location of bi bf
Figure 2.9:Geometry of a Hat Stiffener
16
Table 2.9:Fuselage Stringer Geometry (CFRP)

Parameter Designation bw bf bc Parameter Name and Description Stiffener Hat-Section Web Width Stiffener Hat-Section Flange Width Stiffener Hat-Section Cap Width Stiffener Hat-Section Web Angle Narrow Body (NB) Value 0.66 0.50 1.00 43 Wide Body (WB) Value 1.00 0.50 1.50 43
Units in. in. in. Degrees
Table 2.10: Fuselage Stringer Geometry (Aluminum)

Parameter Designation bw bf bc Parameter Name and Description Stiffener Hat-Section Web Width Stiffener Hat-Section Flange Width Stiffener Hat-Section Cap Width Stiffener Hat-Section Web Angle Narrow Body (NB) Value 0.35 0.30 0.70 43 Wide Body (WB) Value 0.70 0.45 1.40 43
Units in. in. in. Degrees
17
2.3 Loads 2.3.1 Wing
The critical load cases being analyzed is a positive 2.5g maneuver and a negative 1.0g gust at limit load that is a standard specification for Jet Transport Aircraft (Ref 7). Figure 2.10 and 2.11 illustrates the difference between the two load cases. Figure A.2, in Appendix A, shows the V-N diagram for transport military aircraft. The load case for the medium transport military aircraft is the same for the commercial medium transport. The medium transport loading capability is marked in Figure A.2. All load cases are symmetric about the center axis of the fuselage. There is no torsion, drag, or dynamic load cases applied to the wing because the details required for these load cases is out of the scope of this sensitivity analysis.
b 2
L ' ( x ) dx = 2 . 5 W
MGT O
L'(x)
b 2
2.5WMGTO b
Figure 2.10: Generic Load Profile for 2.5g Positive Maneuver
18
L '( x)dx = W
b 2
b 2
MGTO
b W TO
Figure 2.11: Generic Load Profile for Negative 1.0g Gust
2.3.1.1 Lift Profile

Using Shrenks Approximation (Ref 3) it is required to find the trapezoidal chord distribution of the wing, shown in Figure 2.12, and the theoretical elliptical chord distribution of the wing illustrated in Figure 2.13. According to Shrenks approximation the lift distribution is proportional to the average of the Trapezoidal and the elliptic chord distribution. Figure 2.14 plots the comparison between the two distributions. Figure 2.15 shows the resultant lift distribution of the two geometrically averaged. Figure 2.15 gives a linear approximation of the lift distribution which can be used as a short hand method to assure that the distribution sums to the gross takeoff weight; this calculation is shown in Equation 5 (453,000 lb is the gross takeoff weight of the wide body aircraft). Half the gross takeoff weight would be experienced by the half span of the wing in steady level 1.0g flight.
19
Lift per unit length (lb/ft)
S=Area S1 S2 S3 S4 167.16 557.43 424.82 363.91 1513.32
W GTO W 37.77' 2..12 GTO 1 2.12 b 88 b
Chord(y)
W GT ) W 23.61' 1.1.33 GTO 17 GTO 32 bb
S1
Swing
S3
W 0..39 GTO 0 35 GTO b

0.055b
S2 S4 23.61 b 0.127 b 182
W 0.40 GTO 7.08' b
Wing Stationb Wing Station (ft) 00.5b y .500

75.5 ft
Figure 2.12: Trapezoidal Lift Distribution (1g Steady Level Flight)
Lift per unit length
W W 1127 GTO . .13 GTO bb
Wing Station (ft)
0.055b
0.500b
Figure 2.13: Elliptical Lift Distribution (1g Steady Level Flight)
20
40.0 35.0 Chord Distribution (ft) 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 Wing Station (ft) 60.0 80.0 Trapezoid Elliptic
Figure 2.14: Plot of Trapezoid and Elliptic Chord Distribution
Lift Distribution 5000.0 4500.0 4000.0
y = -39.513x + 4406.9 2 R = 0.9966
Lift Distribution (lb/ft)
3500.0 3000.0 2500.0 2000.0 1500.0 1000.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Lift Linear (Lift)
W.S. (ft)
Figure 2.15: Lift Distribution
21
( 5)
lb lb 4500 1500 (75 ft ) ft ft lb Total _ Load = 2 + 1500 (75 ft ) = 450,000 453,000lb 2 ft
2.3.1.2 Inertial Relief 2.3.1.2.1 Wing Weight

The wing total structural weight is modeled with wing trapezoidal chord distribution, shown in Figure 2.16, which is similar to the trapezoidal approximation of the lift distribution. The weight of the wing is subtracted from the lift profile. This is consistent with the load case because when the wing is experiencing a positive 2.5g maneuver the wing weight is resisting the motion with the same load factor. The wing total structural weight is estimated to be 12% of the Gross Takeoff Weight. The wing structural weight distribution is a fixed function of the aircraft gross takeoff weight of the aircraft regardless of the material applied to the structure this is done because there is a large amount of the structural mass in the wing that cannot be accounted for in this sensitivity analysis.
22
0.055b
0.182b
0.500b
Wing Station (ft)
W W 00042 GTO . .05 GTO b b
W W 0..14 GTO 016 GTO b b
W wing=50% W structural
W structural W wing
108600 lb 54300 lb
W W 0 23 GTO 0..25 GTO b
Wing Weight Distribution (lb/ft)
Figure 2.16: Wing Structural Weight Distribution
2.3.1.2.2 Engine and Pylon Weight

The engine weight load is applied at the location of the wing kick (25.4% of the wing half-span outboard of the wing-fuselage intersection). The weight of the engine and the pylon is applied as a discrete point load on the wing. There are two engines, one on each wing, for both the wide and narrow body aircraft. Equation 6 estimates the engine pylon weight using the gross takeoff weight and the maximum thrust to weight ratio.
( 6)
WEngine / Pylon
1 T = 0.064 WGTO # _ of _ Engines W
1.1
(Ref 3)
23
2.3.1.2.3 Fuel Weight

It is assumed that the portion of the total fuel in the wing, specified in Table 2.12, is 80%. The fuel distribution, shown in Figure 2.17, is assumed to taper linearly to zero within the span of one wing. The fuel weight, along with the engine and wing structural weight, is subtracted from the positive lift distribution for the resultant loading on the wing structure.
Table 2.11: Fuel Weight Breakdown

Fuel % Weightfuel %Weight fuel in wing %bspan occupied by fuel 35%W TO 80%W fuel 100%bspan
0.055b
0.500b
Wing Station (ft)
- 0.315 WGTO 0.63 GTO
b b
Fuel Weight Distribution (lb/ft)
Figure 2.17: Fuel in Wing Weight Distribution
24
2.3.1.3 Load Summary

The lift distribution for the positive 2.5g load case is given in Figure 2.18. The negative 1.0g load case would take the same profile but in the negative lift direction with 40% of the magnitude. Both load cases on the wing structure are quasistatic and symmetric.
1.000
0.900
0.800
(lb/ft)
0.700
0.600
Load Distribution
0.500
Location of Engine
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000 0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
Wing Station b (ft)
Figure 2.18: Distributed Load Summary Profile of Positive 2.5g maneuver (does not include engine point load)
25
2.3.1.4 Internal Loading
Engine Point Load Distributed Load

0.3 0.25
(lb) Shear WGTO

Shear
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 0.050
6.0
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
Wing Station
5.0
(lbs-ft) Moment WGTO b
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
Wing Station
b (ft)
Figure 2.19: Shear and Moment Diagram (Positive 2.5g maneuver)
26
2.3.1.5 Load Distribution Correction for Sweep

The load distribution p(x ) is reduced to its component perpendicular to the quarter chord swept span, to account for the effects of a wing sweep.. This will stretch the shear distribution over the swept span while maintaining the same shear loading at the root. The moment at the root will increase. The calculation for quarter chord sweep is given in Equation 3.
LE
Quarter Chord Span b c

4
c 4
C 4
C x) p((x ) cos c
4
c 4
Figure 2.20: Correction for Wing Sweep Illustration
2.3.2 Fuselage
The fuselage structure is sized using two load cases: a positive 2.5g maneuver and a negative 2.0g hard landing. Static load cases are used, for this sizing analysis,
27
which exclude external aerodynamic pressure forces from drag or bending moments from thrust lines of the engines. The hard landing load case takes into account the nose down pitch rate of the fuselage.
This model only takes into account symmetrical load conditions, therefore there is no torsion induced on the fuselage structure. Two load cases are applied individually. The worst case scenario for the crown and belly of any fuselage section is taken for a given failure mode. The model does account for pressurization, but neglects the effects of pressurization on fuselage sections in compression and sections that are failure critical from load case 2. This is because it is assumed that the fuselage is not fully pressurized in the negative 2.0g hard landing load case.
2.3.2.1 Loading Profile

The loading profile for the fuselage structure includes the fuselage structural weight, the airplane payload weight, the front landing gear weight, and the empennage structural weight. It is assumed that the rear landing gear is mounted in the wing fuselage attachment and therefore the load is taken by structural loading points that are not sized in this model. The loading profile is illustrated in Figure 2.21.
28
Front Landing Gear Load
Fixed at Airplane Wing Empennage Load
x1
xf
Fuselage Structure Distributed Load Passenger/Cargo Distributed Load
xt
x2
Figure 2.21: Fuselage Structure Loading Modeled as Cantilever Beam
The fuselage is modeled as two cantilever beams facing outwards, as shown in Figure 2.21, from the wing box quarter chord point. Modeling the fuselage as two cantilever beam is convenient because modeling it as one beam makes it an indeterminate problem. Each cantilever beam has its own coordinate reference system. x f is the fuselage station coordinate starting at the nose of the fuselage and ending at the fuselage quarter chord. xt is the coordinate originating from the tail of the airplane and ending at the wing box quarter chord point.
2.3.2.2 Internal Loading

For the loading given in Figure 2.21 the bottom of the fuselage is in compression which corresponds to a negative bending moment. With the sign convention in Equation 7 and 8, the coordinate system using x f and x t , a maximum positive shear, and minimum negative bending moment takes place at the wing box
29
quarter chord. The internal load distribution for load case 1 and 2 are given in Figures 2.22 and 2.23 respectively.
( 7)
V y ( x) = p( x)dx
( 8)
M x = Vy x
30
Tension Compression
41 541in.
WB
43 276in.
44 336in
46 396in
47 273in
48 379in.
0.2 0.18 0.16
Shear WWGTO (lb) Shear GTO (lb)
0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fuselage Station
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Fuselage Station
0.5
b (ft)
b
(ft)
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(lbs-ft) 10 2 b 10 WGTO WGTO b (lbs-ft)
-1
-2
M oment
2 Moment
-3
-4
-5
-6
Fuselage b Fuselage Station Station (ft)
b (ft)
Figure 2.22: Shear and Moment Distribution for Fuselage Load Case 1 ( Positive 2.5g Maneuver)
31
Tension Compression
WB
41 541in.
43 276in.
44 336in
46 396in
47 273in
48 379in.
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
(lb)
WGTO
Shea
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fuselage b (ft) Fuselage Station Station

6 4
b (ft)
Moment 10 2 WGTO b (lb-ft)
2 0 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14

Fuselage Station b (ft) Fuselage Station (ft)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 2.23: Shear and Moment Distribution for Fuselage Load Case 2 (Negative 2.0g Hard Landing)
32
The shear and moment distribution profiles are the same for the narrow and wide body, though they have different magnitudes and length of distributions. The maneuver load case has a maximum negative moment at the intersection of the rear fuselage and the wing box. The hard landing condition has a maximum negative moment at the rear landing gear and a maximum positive moment on the forward fuselage at the mid point between the front and rear landing gear.
2.3.2.3 Pressurization
The fuselage skin has a tensile stress from an ultimate pressurization load of 18 psi, applied to all fuselage cabin structure. The pressurization load is the same between the narrow and wide body aircraft, and also the same for the analysis of the CFRP and Aluminum Alloy materials.
2.4 Stress Analysis 2.4.1 Thin Walled Idealized Beam Theory (Ref 2)
The axial stress formula is given in Equation 9. M z is the moment about the lateral axis. y i is the discrete location of stress.
33
( 9)
x =
M z ( yi yG ) I ZZ
The Shear Flow and Shear Stress formula is given in Equation 10 and 11.
( 10)
q =
V y Qz I zz ,
( 11)
xy =
qi ti
Q z and I z are the first and second moment of area respectively, and are given in
Equation 12. The first and second moment of inertia using discrete areas is given in Equation 13.
( 12)
Q z = ydA
A
I z = y 2 dA
A
( 13)
Q z = Ai ( y i y G )
i =1
I z = Ai ( y i y G )
i =1
34
y G is the lateral neutral axis (or y-component of the mass center) and its formula is
given in Equation 14. The discretized calculation of the y-component of the centroid is also in Equation 14.
( 14)
1 yG = ydA = A A
Ay
i =1 n i
A
i =1
2.4.2 Hoop and Longitudinal Stress (Ref 5)

The hoop stress is the circumferential stress in a pressure vessel wall. The longitudinal stress is parallel to the axis of symmetry in the pressure vessel wall. p is the pressure in psi. r is the radius of the pressure vessel. t is the thickness of the pressure vessel wall.
( 15)
Hoop =
pr t pr 2t
Longitudinal =
35
2.4.3 Buckling Analysis

2.4.3.1 Compression Buckling
The buckling strength of a panel depends on thickness, width, stiffness, aspect ratio, Poissons effects and the lay-up or bending stiffness matrix of the laminate. Figure 2.24 shows the geometry and loads on individual panels of width b and length
a that are used to determine buckling stability. Since the buckling strength for
laminates depends on thickness and stacking sequence the flexural stiffness coefficients are used, referred to as the [D ] matrix. The [D ] matrix terms are used to calculate the buckling strength of a composite laminate in Equation 16.
N x is the critical running load in the laminate panel expressed in (lb/in.). m is the number of half sine waves formed by the buckled material. The value of m is chosen that gives the minimum buckling strength for a given aspect ratio.
( 16)
2 2 2 b (D12 + 2 D66 ) + D22 a 1 N x = 2 D11 m + 2 b a b m 2
36
Panel for Buckling Analysis
Aspect Ratio = a/b a
a b Compression Stringers
Shear
ribs
Figure 2.24: Stiffened Panels on the Wing Box Skin
Buckling of aluminum depends on thickness, width, stiffness, poisons ratio and aspect ratio. The equations to calculate buckling strength are for isotropic materials. The isotropic buckling equations are used to calculate the buckling strength of an Aluminum Alloy panel as shown in Equation 17, where E c is the Elastic Modulus of the material in compression. The plot illustrating the K values for the compression and shear buckling are in Appendix C, Figure C.2.
( 17)
2 Ec t a t = K c E c where K c = f cr = C c 2 12(1 ) b b b
2 2
37
2.4.3.2 Shear Buckling

The shear buckling strength formula in Equation 18 is found in Reference 8 for a composite laminate. It is also a function of the flexure coefficients. This equation is derived assuming the long plate assumption which makes it a conservative shear buckling strength calculation for the geometry of the panels in this structure. K is a parameter that accounts for bend-twist coupling in the stability of a laminate.
( 18)
K=
D12 + 2 D66 D11 D22
N xy = N xy =
4 b2
4
D11 D22 (8.125 + 5.045K ) when K 1

3
4 b2
1.46 D22 (D12 + 2 D66 )11.71 + 2 when K < 1 K
In Equation 19 the shear buckling strength cr , for the isotropic Aluminum Alloy, is a function of axial Elastic Modulus E . Equation 19 uses the Elastic Modulus rather than the shear modulus, because pure shear produces equal compressive and tensile principal stresses on the diagonal plane with respect to the edge of the plate. The concept of pure shear as diagonal principal stresses is displayed in Figure 2.25 (Ref 2).
38
( 19)
cr
2 Ec t a t = Cs = K s E c where K s = f 2 12(1 ) b b b
2 2
45
Figure 2.25: Principal Stress Components of Pure Shear Buckling (Ref 2)
2.4.3.3 Bending Buckling

The bending buckling strength formula, Equation 20, for a composite laminate is found in Reference 8. Like the shear buckling equation for composite laminate, Equation 20 assumes the long plate assumption.
( 20)
Nx =
2
b2
[13.9
D11 D22 + 11.1(D12 + 2 D66 )
39
The bending buckling allowable, used for the Aluminum Alloy, is found using Equation 21 (Ref 7). The buckling coefficient k b is found from Figure C5.15 from Reference 7. The Elastic Modulus for Compression E = E c is used for Aluminum Alloy in Equation 21. Bending buckling is illustrated, in Figure 2.26, where w is the deflection of the web. Buckling, in Figure 2.26, is positive for out of the page and negative for in the page.
( 21)
2 Ec t b = kb 12(1 2 ) b
w=deflection
2 b 3
w+ w+ www+ w+ ww-
b w=0 0 0 0
Figure 2.26: Bending Buckling Illustration (Ref 7)
40
2.4.3.4 Compression-Shear Interaction

To determine the compression and shear buckling interaction the following ratios are defined in Equation 22. The margin of safety for this buckling interaction is defined in Equation 23 and is displayed in Figure 2.27 for a margin of safety of zero. The critical compression ratio RL for axial stress is negative if the axial stress is in tension and positive if in compression. If RL is negative it helps prohibit shear buckling, therefore increasing the buckling stability in Equation 23.
( 22)
x Cr RS = x Cr
RL =
(Note: RL is negative for tension)
( 23)
M .S . =
2
R L + R L + 4 RS
2 2
41
1.6
1.4
Shear & Tension
1.2
M.S.=0
1
RL+RS2=1
Rs
0.8
Pure Shear Buckling
Compression & Shear
0.6
Pure Compression Buckling
0.4
0.2
0 -1.0
Tension Tensio
-0.5 0.0 0.5
Compression
1.0
RL
Figure 2.27: Compression Shear Buckling Interaction (Ref 7)
2.4.3.5 Shear-Bending Interaction

The shear-bending buckling interaction formula uses the ratios presented in Equation 24 and 25. The ratios include: the shear stress xy and shear buckling strength cr ratio. The bending axial stress on a web x _ b , shown in Figure 2.25, and the bending strength cr _ b ratio. The ratios in Equation 24 are used in Equation 25 to determine shear-bending buckling failure.
42
( 24)
xy cr x_b Rb = cr _ bending
Rs =
( 25)
M .S . =
1
Rs + Rb
2 2
2.4.3.6 Longitudinal Crippling of Stringers 2.4.3.6.1 CFRP

A method for determining the crippling allowables for a long slender plate is taken from Reference 4. Tests conducted by Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas under their Independent Research Development (IRAD) programs have confirmed that more accurate buckling and crippling predictions may be obtained when the curves (for unidirectional material) are defined in terms of non-dimensional parameters (Ref 4). These non-dimensional parameters are displayed in Equation 26. In the following equations and figures Fcc is the crippling stress, Fcu is the ultimate compression stress of the material, E x is the in plane elastic modulus, E y is the transverse elastic modulus, b is the width of the loaded edge of the panel, and t is the thickness of the stiffener.
43
( 26)
F cc Ex b E _& _ cu F E t Ex
Fcu Ex E y
There are two curves provided in Reference 4 dealing with one edge free and no edge free crippling test results. These curves were generated with unidirectional tape data from the following carbon fiber types: -IM7/5250-4 Data -IM8/HTA Data -Crad AS/3501-6 Data The one edge free crippling curve is displayed in Figure 2.28. The no edge free crippling curve is given in Figure 2.29.
44
Figure 2.28: One Edge Free Crippling (logarithmic scale) (Ref 4)
Figure 2.29: No Edge Free Crippling (logarithmic scale) (Ref 4)
45
Crippling Curves
0.8 0.7 0.6
Fcc Exc Fcu E
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
One edge free No edge Free
bE tExc
Fcu Exc E yc
Figure 2.30: Crippling Curves
The trend line points were taken from Figure 2.28 and 2.29, written down by hand, and were plotted on a linear scaled graph presented in Figure 2.30. Equation 27 is used to determine the crippling strength for a one edge free or no edge free long plate. These equations were formulated by adding trend lines to the curves in Figure 2.30. Each cap of the stringer in the I-section of the wing is modeled as two long plates with one edge free and one edge fixed. The web of the stringer is modeled as one long plate with both edges fixed. The spar caps are modeled as two long plates with one edge free and one edge fixed. The crippling curves are for one edge free (OEF) and no edge free (NEF) long slender panels.
46
The fuselage Hat-section cap has one cap plate, two webs, and two flanges as shown in Figure 2.9. The cap is modeled as a long slender plate with both edges clamped, the webs modeled with both edges clamped, and the flanges with only one edge clamped. The radius of the curved geometry between the plates is neglected in the crippling analysis.
( 27)
b E F cc Ex (OEF ) = 0.5832 t Ex F cu E b E F cc Ex ( NEF ) = 0.9356 t Ex F cu E where E= 12(1 xy 2 ) D11 t3
Ex E y Fcu
0.786
Ex E y Fcu
0.842
2.4.3.6.2 Aluminum
Equation 28 is used to calculate the crippling strength of the Aluminum Alloy Columns. cy is the compressive yield strength. There is a specified cutoff stress for 7075-T3 Aluminum Alloy given in Equation 29. The cutoff stress is used as the crippling strength of the column in the case where the calculated crippling strength from Equation 28 exceeds the cutoff stress in Equation 29.
47
( 28)
cc (OEF ) = 0.546 b cy t Ec cy cc (NEF ) = 1.34 b cy t Ec cy
0.8
0.8
(Ref 2)
( 29)
co = 1.075 cy
(Ref 2)
2.4.3.7 Effective Width

The concept of effective width is used in determining the buckling stability of a stiffened panel. The formula used to determine effective width is given in Equation 30. The effective width is used to determine the amount of skin area that shares the same stress as the stiffener before the stiffener buckles. Therefore it is used in conjunction with Euler column buckling to determine the global buckling strength of the stiffeners. Figure 2.31 illustrates the concept of effective width. K = 0.85 is used when both edges of the skin is clamped. A plot used to determine the radius of gyration for a given effective width contribution is given in Appendix B, Figure B.5.
48
( 30)
we = t skin K
E skin E stiffener
skin
(Ref 2)
2we
Figure 2.31: Skin Buckled Stiffened Panel and Effective Width Illustration
2.4.3.8 Euler Column Buckling

Equation 31 is used to determine Euler Column Buckling strength. Le is the effective length, is the radius of gyration, and the ratio of the two is the slenderness ratio. If the slenderness ratio is below a critical value displayed in
49
Equation 31 than inelastic buckling occurs; if the slenderness ratio is above the critical value than the buckling is elastic. The inelastic portion is referred to as the Johnson Curve, and the Elastic the as Euler curve. The Elastic Modulus in Equation 31 corresponds to that of the stringer material. There is a Johnson and Euler Column Curve illustrated in Figure B.4 in Appendix B.
( 31)
Le 2 = crit cc E
cr
1 cc Le = cc 1 2 4 E
L L for e < e
crit
cr =
L L 2E for e > e 2 crit (Le )
50
2.5 Materials
Two materials are selected to be representative for this comparison. The composite lamina properties are taken from Reference 4. The lamina and laminate tension ultimate, and open hole strengths, are adjusted to mimic the tension compression strength ratios that are currently being used in the commercial industry.
2.5.1 CFRP
Table 2.12: CFRP Lamina Properties
E1 E2 G12 F1tu F2tu F12su Vf 25 1.7 0.65 0.31 0.056 165 4 9 0.6 Msi Msi Msi lb/in3 ksi ksi ksi tp 0.0052 in 1 2 0.3 19.5 /C /C
o o
F1cu F2cu
110 20
ksi ksi
51
Table 2.13: CFRP Laminate Properties

[25/50/25] Ex Ey xy tu cu su [50/40/10] Ex Ey xy tu cu su [10/80/10] Ex Ey xy tu cu su
9.4 9.4 0.32 60 40 24
Msi Msi
ksi ksi ksi
oht ohc
48 27
ksi ksi
14.5 5.9 0.30 96 64 24
Msi Msi
ksi ksi ksi
oht ohc
77 43
ksi ksi
5.8 5.8 0.59 38 25 36
Msi Msi
ksi ksi ksi
oht ohc
30 17
ksi ksi
2.5.2 CFRP Lamination Scheme of Aircraft Structure

The laminate families chosen for the sub-structure are those that are currently being used in the medium jet transport commercial industry. The actual laminate for the stringers is not [50/40/10] but rather quasi-isotropic and capped with unidirectional zero lamina plies. When a weighted average of the stiffness of the stringer
52
material is taken it is similar, though a little larger, than the skin. For simplicity the stringer family is assumed to be that of the skin.
The laminate families for the wing structure are: Wing Skin-50/40/10 Stringers-50/40/10 Spar Caps-10/80/10 Spar Webs-10/80/10 Ribs (not of significance in this analysis) *The rib spacing is analogous to the stiffened panel length presented in section 2.2.1 (wing). The rib pacing is a multiple of the stringers spacing and is maintained a constant to what is being used in industry.
The laminate families for the fuselage structure are: Fuselage Skin-25/50/25 Stringers-25/50/25 Frames (not of significance in this analysis) *The frame spacing is analogous to the stiffened panel length presented in section 2.2.2 (fuselage). The frame spacing is a multiple of the stiffener spacing and is maintained a constant to what is being used in industry.
53
The minimum gauge for the quasi-isotropic laminate is 0.055 in. This is the minimum gauge value used in industry, therefore the ply thickness is scaled from this value to determine buildable laminate thicknesses. The minimum gauge laminate thickness corresponds to a ply value of 0.0068 in., different from the ply value used to determine laminate mechanical properties displayed in Table 2.12.
2.5.3 Aluminum
The Aluminum Alloy used in this comparison is 7075-T6 sheet properties. The same mechanical properties are used for the sheets and longitudinal extrusions, which actually have slightly different property values. 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloy is normally used in compression critical areas like the belly of the fuselage and the top of the wing. The Aluminum Alloy does not have good toughness and damage tolerant properties. The material properties of 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloy sheet are given in Table 2.14.
54
Table 2.14: 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloy Properties
Alloy
Current
Yield Strength (ksi) Ultimate Strength (ksi) Fatigue Strength (ksi) Elastic Modulus (msi) Shear Modulus (msi) Shear Stregth (ksi)
71 80 23.7 10.5 3.9 48
The fatigue strength for the 7075 Aluminum Alloy is defined as the detail fatigue rating for a Class 1 Notch with a stress ratio of R = 0.06 at 100,000 cycles. The fatigue strength of 24 ksi is used as an estimate based on one third of the yield stress. The fatigue strength is the same for all tension critical sections of the aircraft except for fuselage section tension critical from load case 2 (negative 2.0g Hard Landing). The yield strength in Table 2.14 refers to compression yield strength and the ultimate strength corresponds to ultimate tension strength. The density of 7075-T6 is 0.101 lb/in3.
2.5.4 Material Enhancement Analysis Cases

Each material case is an enhancement of the baseline material. The percent enhancement is chosen based on the feasibility of the enhancement in industry. Technically this is not a sensitivity study because the percent enhancements are not adjusted to give the same unit change in thickness t of the structure. A sensitivity study would give better weight or volume estimates of the structure that is governed
55
by a certain failure mode. Listed below are the material enhancements for this comparison.
CFRP Improved Composite +25% OHC +25% OHT +50% Elastic Modulus
Aluminum Advanced Alloy +10% Elastic Modulus +50% Fatigue Limit +100% Fatigue Limit
56
2.6 Failure Modes and Criteria 2.6.1 CFRP

2.6.1.1 Wing
There is a stiffness redistribution factor applied to the directionalized wing skin. Since the wing box sub-structures are different families of laminates they have different Modulus of Elasticity. For example the [50/40/10] wing skin will take more loading from wing flexure than the [10/80/10] spar caps. The wing skin has more fiber lamina with zero orientation in the plane of the wing flexure load and therefore has a larger stiffness in that direction. The stress transformation factor was found in Reference 5. The equations and illustrations of the load redistribution are given in Appendix C, Figure C.3.
2.6.1.1.1 Fracture
The Ultimate Tension and Compression Fracture Strength used for the current composite material and for three improved material cases for Quasi-Isotropic material is given in Table 2.13. Fracture takes place at ultimate load for all sub-structure. Ultimate load is the limit or design load multiplied by a safety factor of 1.5. Equation 32 shows the margin of safety used to size the structure. The margin of safety must be greater than or equal to zero. In the enhancement analysis cases it should be noted that although the OHC fracture strength is larger for the case of improved composite
57
1, the compression ultimate allowable is not changed, this is also true for OHT. The failure criteria for the CFRP laminate wing structure:
1) Open Hole Compression (OHC) of skin and spar caps at ultimate load. 2) Open Hole Tension (OHT) of skin and spar caps at ultimate load. 3) Tension ultimate of stringers at ultimate load. 4) Compression ultimate of stringers at ultimate load. 5) Shear ultimate of spar web at ultimate load.
( 32)
M .S . Fracture =
Fracture _ Allowable 1 0 1.5 Limit
2.6.1.1.2 Buckling
1) Compression buckling of stringers at ultimate load. 2) Compression crippling of spar caps at ultimate load. 3) Combined compression and shear buckling of skin at ultimate load. 4) Combined shear and bending buckling of spar webs at ultimate load.
58
2.6.1.2 Fuselage 2.6.1.2.1 Fracture

1) Open Hole Compression OHC fracture at limit load (when the minimum principal stress in the skin 2 exceeds the open hole compression strength of the material). 2) Open Hole Tension fracture OHT at limit load (when the maximum principal stress in the skin 1 exceeds the open hole tension strength). 3) Ultimate shear fracture at ultimate load (where the maximum shear stress max exceeds the shear strength of the skin material) 4) Ultimate tension fracture at ultimate load (when axial tension stress x(+) exceeds the tensile strength of the stringer material) 5) Ultimate compression fracture at ultimate load (when the axial compressive stress
x(-) exceeds the compressive strength of the material)
2.6.1.2.2 Buckling
1) Buckling from combined shear and compression at limit load ( when the axial compression stress x(-) and the shear stress xy interacts and makes the skin unstable) 2) Buckling from combined shear and tension at limit load (when axial tension stress
x(+) and shear stress xy interact and the skin becomes unstable)
59
3) Compression Buckling/Crippling at ultimate load (when the axial compression stress x(-) exceeds the value at which the stringer integrated stiffened panel becomes unstable)
2.6.2 Aluminum Alloy

Additional Aluminum Alloy properties are given in Appendix C, Figure C.1. Aluminum Failure modes are the same for both wing and fuselage.
2.6.2.1 Fracture
1) Compression yield of skin, stringers, spar caps at ultimate load. 2) Tensile ultimate of skin, stringers, spar caps at ultimate load. 3) Shear ultimate of skin and spar web at ultimate load.
2.6.2.2 Buckling
1) Compression buckling of stringers at ultimate load. 2) Compression crippling of spar cap at ultimate load. 3) Combined compression and shear buckling of skin at ultimate load. 4) Combined shear and bending buckling of spar webs at ultimate load.
2.6.2.3 Fatigue
1) Fatigue from tension of skin, stringers, and spar caps at limit load, for both load cases.
60
2.7 Optimization 2.7.1 Optimized Variables

2.7.1.1 Wing
Optimized variables include the thickness of all substructures such as: 1) Skin thickness (top and bottom) 2) Spar web thickness (forward and aft) 3) Spar cap thickness (forward and aft) 4) Stringer cap/web thickness (top and bottom)
2.7.1.2 Fuselage
1) Skin thickness (top and bottom) 2) Stringer cap/web/flange thickness
2.7.2 Fixed Variables

1) All material properties are fixed. 2) The configuration geometry is fixed (i.e. stiffener spacing and widths of stiffener cross section)
* The structural configuration geometry is fixed because otherwise the optimization would be under-constrained.
2.7.2.1 Wing
Fixed variables for geometry of the wing box substructure:
61
1) Skin width or wing box width (top and bottom) 2) Spar web width or wing box height (forward and aft) 3) Spar cap width (forward and aft) 4) Stringer width (top and bottom) 5) Stringer height (top and bottom) 6) Stringer Spacing 7) Frame Spacing 8) Stringer Geometry
2.7.2.2 Fuselage
Fixed variables fuselage structure: 1) Fuselage Diameter 2) Fuselage Length 3) Stinger Spacing 4) Frame Spacing 5) Stringer Geometry
62
2.7.3 Concept of Minimum Gauge

Minimum gauge is the minimum skin thickness for the fuselage that is driven by a default requirement. The minimum skin thickness is maintained when there is no critical structural requirement that drives the skin thickness. Default requirements that determine minimum gauge can consist of: 1) Structural integrity after impact 2) Lightning strike 3) Pressurization (or pillowing) 4) Manufacturability
In this study the Minimum Gauge is 0.055 in. which is the thinnest Quasi-Isotropic ([25/50/25]) laminate that can be manufactured.
2.7.4 Discretization
Figure 2.35 illustrates the sequence of the methodology in the calculation process. Figure 2.35 also shows and defines the input parameters for each function in the methodology. This is in iterative calculation process, therefore the flow chart represents an iteration starting from the initial thickness and finishing with the optimized thickness. The optimized thickness is then put in as the initial thickness for the next iteration.
63
2.7.4.1 Geometry and Cross Sectional Area Distribution

The structure is broken up into sections with lumped area a i . The areas are referred to as lumped because they include the cross sectional area of the skin and stringers for the i th section. t is an array of the thicknesses of the structure to be optimized. bi is a n 1 array of the widths of each i th panel for a total of n panels for the stringers. For example an I-section stringer has three panels consisting of two caps and a web. The input parameters for the area distribution of the wing are given in Equation 33 and for the fuselage, Equation 34. h and w correspond to the wing box height and width respectively. D is the fuselage diameter. Figure 2.32 gives an example of how the area of the wing box is implemented as an area distribution in MATLAB.
( 33)
ai = a(h, w, t , bi ) y i = y (h, w, ai )
( 34)
a i = a( D, t , bi ) y i = y ( D)
64
ytsk
ytsc
ytst
Figure 2.32: Lumping Areas on the Wing Box
Once the lateral area distribution is known the center of area y G (or referred to as center of mass) and the second moment of area I z are calculated. The input parameters for this calculation are given in Equation 35. The discretized formulas in Equation 14, section 2.4.1, are used to calculate the center of area and second moment of area.
( 35)
y G = y G (ai , y i ) I z = I (ai , y i , y G )
65
2.7.4.2 Internal Loads

The internal loads are found using the maximum gross takeoff weight, geometry, and load cases from the wide body aircraft. This internal loading is scaled to the weight and geometry of the aircraft being analyzed. The input parameters for the internal loads on the aircraft structure are given in Equation 36. WGTO is the maximum gross takeoff weight of the aircraft. L is the length of the structure (i.e. the span of the wing or length of the fuselage). n z is the load factor for the specified load case where LC1 is load case 1 and LC2 is load case 2.
( 36)
V y = V (WGTO , L, n z _ LC1 , n z _ LC 2 ) M z = M (WGTO , L, n z _ LC1 , n z _ LC 2 )
66
2.7.4.3 Internal Stress

At this point in the method it is required that the user define material properties. E skin and E stringer are applied to distinguish between the skin and the stringers, based on their material stiffness. This enables instances where the skin and stringers have different stiffness and therefore carry different axial stress.
The input parameters used to calculate internal stress are presented in Equation 37 and 38 for the wing and fuselage respectively. p is the internal cabin pressure. xi is the axial stress in the i th lumped area. yi is the transverse stress, which is entirely from hoop stress due to pressurization. Axial tensile stress from pressurization is applied to sections in tension from bending, or that are not compression critical. q i is the shear flow. xyi is the shear stress. 1, 2i is the maximum and minimum principal stress.
( 37)
xi = x ( M z , I z , y i , y G , E Skin , E Stiff , h, w, t ) xyi = xy (qi , t )

qi = q (V y , I z , ai , y i )
1, 2i = 1 ( xi , yi , xyi )
67
( 38)
xi = x ( M z , I z , y i , y G , E Skin , E Stiff , P, D, t ) yi = y ( P, D, t ) xyi = xy (qi , t )

qi = q (V y , I z , ai , y i )
1, 2i = 1 ( xi , yi , xyi )
2.7.4.4 Buckling Stability

The material properties defined are now used to determine buckling stability. As described the fuselage is viewed as a series of flat stiffened panels around the circumference of a circle. is Poissons ratio. b p is the width of the stiffened panel. a p is the length of the stiffened panel. y bi is the local lateral position of each panel of the stiffener and is used to calculate the local second moment of area for the stringer cross section. The use of these parameters in determining the buckling stability is illustrated in Equation 39.
( 39)
Cr _ Stiff = Stiff ( E Stiff , E Skin, bi , y bi , t ) Cr _ Skin = Sk (E Skin , b p , a p , t , ) Cr _ Skin = Sk ( E Skin , b p , a p , t , Cr _ Stiff , )
68
2.7.4.5 Margins of Safety

All the information has been calculated to determine the margins of safety for each i th lumped area. The margins of safety for fracture at limit and ultimate load, buckling at limit load and ultimate load for the wing, and fatigue at limit load are calculated. These margins of safety are stored in n 1 arrays. Since the load cases are laterally symmetric only the margins of safety along the lateral plane are necessary.
The fracture failure mode corresponds to Open Hole fracture for a quasiisotropic composite at limit and the material ultimate fracture strength at ultimate load for aluminum. The buckling failure mode corresponds to thin plate buckling for the fuselage skin at limit and Euler beam elastic and inelastic buckling for the stringers at ultimate. The fatigue failure mode corresponds to Aluminum Alloy skin at limit load only.
The margins of safety now get filtered for the most critical one, for each failure mode, for the fuselage sections crown and belly. This is done because the margin of safety for the skin and stringers are applied to a variable constraint in the optimization. Each skin and stringer section has one linear and one non-linear constraint.
69
2.7.5 Optimization
The inputs used in the MATLAB formulated optimization function fmincon are illustrated in Equation 40. t ' is the optimized thickness of the sub-structure.
( 40)
t ' = fmincon ( f ,[ A],[UB ],[ LB ],[C ], t0 ) f min con

2.7.5.1 Cost Function
f is the cost function which, like the non-linear inequality constraints, is defined as a separate MATLAB function of the optimized variable t . This is because any function where the first or second derivative is used by the optimization is required by MATLAB to be defined as a separate called function. The cost function is the function minimized during the optimization process. In this optimization the cost function is the total cross sectional area as a function of the skin and stringer thicknesses. The cross sectional area is used as the cost function because it is directly proportional to weight. In Equation 41 and 42 A is the area of the sub-structure.
( 41)
Awing = Askin + AStringers + ASpar _ Caps + ASpar _ Webs
( 42)
A fuselage = Askin + AStringers
70
2.7.5.2 Linear Inequality Constraints

Each fuselage sections margins of safety is filtered down to the most critical. This is applied to one linear and non-linear constraint for each variable in the thickness array t . The optimization starting position is t 0 and is the same as the initial thickness used to determine the initial margins of safety. The starting position of the optimization never changes only the constraints change. [A] is a 4 4 matrix defining the linear inequality constraints of the optimization. The linear inequality constraints take the following form given in Equation 43. {b} is the value that the inequality should not exceed.
( 43)
[A] {b}
It is more convenient to apply the margins of safeties directly to the constraints rather than deriving a constraint directly from the margin of safety equation and making it a function of thickness directly. A logical process of the application of the margins of safety to the constraints is described below. An example is presented using the Open Hole Compression (OHC) margin of safety for the quasiisotropic skin material. t 0i is the initial thickness of the substructure. t fi is the optimized thickness of the substructure. The OHC margin of safety is given in
71
Equation 44. The safety factor S.F. for the fuselage is 1.0 for the fuselage and 1.5 for the wing for OHC.
( 44)
M .S . =
OHC 1 ( S .F . ) 2
If the M .S . < 0 then the minimum principal stress of the skin is larger in magnitude than the open hole compression strength of the skin material, so the skin fails. Therefore the skin needs to become thicker. Axial stress is inversely related to second moment of area (i.e. x = Mc I ). The second moment of area is linearly related to thickness (i.e. I = D 3 t 8 , for a thin walled cylinder). Therefore axial stress is inversely related to thickness. Assume we have an initial margin of safety of M .S . 0 < 0 . At what thickness increase would it take to make the margins of safety larger than or equal to zero. From the relationships established above the required thickness can be approximated from Equation 45. The general relationship between axial stress and skin thickness is presented in Figure 2.33.
72
Figure 2.33:Generic Axial Stress and Skin Thickness Relationship
( 45)
M .S . f =
OHC t fi 1 0 2 t 0i
Where the optimized thickness t fi > t 0i . The linear fracture constraint, with OHC as the critical failure mode, is given in Equation 46. A similar constraint formulation is valid for stringer ultimate tensile or compression failure.
( 46)
g ( x) Linear = 1 ( M .S .0 + 1)
t fi t 0i
73
2.7.5.3 Non-linear Inequality Constraints
[C ] is the non-linear inequality constraint which is actually defined, like the

cost function, as a separate MATLAB function. The variable being optimized, in this case t , is an input parameter. The non-linear inequality constraints have to be equal to or less than zero.
( 47)
[C ] 0
The buckling margin of safety combines compression and shear bucking effects. The compression and shear buckling stability varies with the skin or web thickness squared (i.e. cr , cr = const t 2 ). The relationship between actual axial
stress and thickness is also combined to give the cubic relationship in Equation 48. The nonlinear constraint is constructed using the same logical method as the linear constraint. A generic plot illustrating how axial stress and buckling stability vary with skin or web thickness is given in Figure 2.34.
74
Axial Stress x
Buckling Strength cr
Figure 2.34: Generic Buckling Stability and Axial Stress vs Skin Thickness Relationship
( 48)
g ( x) non linear = 1 ( M .S .0 + 1)
t fi t 0i
3 3
Stringer buckling is a methodical procedure. Therefore, the buckling stability of a stringer or spar cap does not have an as apparent relationship to flange and web thickness, as it has for the skin thickness. Through a trial and error process the nonlinear buckling constraint of the stringers yields the following relationship in Equation 49. This relationship was found by arbitrarily changing the exponent of the thickness ratio until the stringers thickness converged to a margin of safety of zero.
75
( 49)
g ( x) non linear = 1 (M .S .0 + 1)
t fi t 0i
There are no equality constraints used in this optimization.
2.7.5.4 Upper and Lower Boundaries
[UB] and [LB ] are the upper and lower bound limits respectively. The optimized
variable cannot exceed the upper bound limit values and cannot fall below the lower bound limit values. The lower bound limit is useful for enforcing minimum gauge requirement.
76
User Defined Fuselage Geometry -Fuselage Diameter D -Fuselage Length L
User Defined Total Airplane Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight -Gross Takeoff Weight WGTO
User Defined Load Factors -Load Factor for Load Case 1 nz_LC1 -Load Factor for Load Case 2 nz_LC2
User Defined Internal Cabin Pressure -Cabin Pressure P
User Defined Material Properties -Stiffness of Skin Eskin -Open Hole Compression Fracture Strength (for composite only) ohc -Open Hole Compression Fracture Strength (for composite only) oht -Fracture Ultimate Compression Strength cu -Fracture Ultimate Tensile Strength tu -Compression yield Strength of Skin (for metallic only) cy -Tensile yield Strength of Skin (for metallic only) ty -Stiffness of Stringer Estiff -Poissons Ratio
User Defined Stiffened Configuration Geometry -Stiffener Section Length bi -Stiffener Sections Lateral Position ybi -Width of Stiffened Panel bp -Length of Stiffened Panel ap
User Defined Initial Thickness Array t0 for -Crown Skin -Crown Stiffener -Belly Skin -Belly Stiffener
Area Distribution and Lateral Position
a i = a ( D , t, bi ) yi = y(D )
Centroid and Second Moment of Area Fuselage Internal Load
V y = V (WGTO , L, n z _ LC 1 , n z _ LC 2 ) M z = M (WGTO , L, n z _ LC 1 , n z _ LC 2 )
y G = y G (a i , y i ) I z = I (ai , y i , y G )
Skin and Stiffener Compression and Shear Buckling Stability Critical Stress Allowables
Cr _ Skin = Sk (ESkin, bp , a p , t, Cr _ Stiff ,) Cr _ Skin = Sk (ESkin, bp , a p , t,) Cr _ Stiff = Stiff (EStiff , ESkin,bi , ybi , t)
Axial,Transverse, Shear, and Principle Stresses
xi = x ( M z , I z , y i , y G , E Skin , E Stiff , P , D , t ) yi = y ( P , D , t ) xyi = xy (q i , t )

q i = q (V y , I z , a i , y i )
1, 2 i = 1 ( xi , yi , xyi )
t0 = t
Margins -Margin -Margin -Margin -Margin -Margin
of of of of of of
Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety
for all area sections ai Array for Fracture of Skin at Ultimate and Limit Load M.S.Fract_sk Array for Fracture of Stringer at Ultimate Load M.S.Fract_st for Skin Buckling Array M.S.Buck_sk for Stringer Buckling Array M.S.Buck_st Array for Fatigue Failure of Skin M.S.Fatigue
Filter for Most Critical Margins of Safety for the Crown (Top) and Belly (Bottom) -Crown Skin Fracture or Fatigue M.S.Fract_sk_Top -Belly Skin Fracture or Fatigue M.S.Fract_sk_Bottom -Crown Stringer Fracture M.S.Fract_st_Top -Belly Stringer Fracture M.S.Fract_st_Bottom -Crown Skin Buckling M.S.Buck_sk_Top -Belly Skin Buckling M.S.Buck_sk_Bottom -Crown Stringer Buckling M.S.Buck_st_Top -Belly Stringer Buckling M.S.Buck_st_Bottom *The fatigue margin of safety if grouped with the fracture margin of safey for the skin to simplify filtering of critical margins of safety used for linear constraints. the optimization process. in
User Defined Optimization Starting Thickness t0
User Defined Optimizatoin Boundaries -Upper Boundary [UB] -Lower Boundary [LB] *Boundaries are used when imposing a minimum gauge.
Constraints for Optimizatoin -Linear Inequality Constraints [A] -Non Linear Inequality Constraints [C] *There are no equality constraints.
Optimization Cost (Total Cross Sectoinal Area)
Optimizing Thickness
f = f (t , D , bi )
t ' = f min con ( f ,[ A],[UB ],[ LB ],[C ], t 0 )
Figure 2.35: Optimization Flow Chart (example for fuselage)
77
3 Verification
3.1 Regression Analysis
Reference 1 takes a regression approach to verify the load bearing weight calculation of their model. Reference 1 breaks down the structural weight into three categories: load bearing, primary, and total structural weight. The substructure included in these three categories is listed below (Ref 1). These categories include substructure for both the fuselage and the wing.
Load Bearing Structural Weight (Ref 1) -Skin -Stringers -Frames -Bulkheads
Primary Structural Weight (Ref 1) -Joints -Fasteners -Keel Beam -Fail Safe Strap -Flooring and Flooring Structural Supplies -Pressure Web
78
-Lavatory Structure -Galley Support -Partitions -Shear Ties -Tie Rods -Structural Firewall -Torque Boxes -Attachment Fittings
The total structural weight accounts for all structural members in addition to primary structural weight. Total structural weight does not include (Ref 1): -Seats -Lavatories -Kitchen -Stowage and Lighting -Electrical Systems -Flight and Navigation Systems -Cargo Commodities -Flight Deck Accommodations -Air Conditioning Equipment -Auxiliary Power Systems -Emergency Systems
79
Reference 1 uses the weight breakdown of 8 commercial transport aircraft to compare the calculated weight from its parametric model (PDCYL). Reference 1 uses the value of the statistical correlation coefficient to verify the structural weight output of its model. Regression lines are plotted for load bearing, primary, and total structural weight. The model presented in this document calculated weight using the same aircraft data.
3.1.1 Wing
Table 3.1 shows the actual weight break downs of the wing for the eight aircraft that reference 1 uses to verify its weight calculations it also shows the calculated weight produced by the model presented in this document. Figures 3.1 through 3.4 show the linear regression lines for the data in Table 3.1. The correlation coefficients are displayed on each plot. Figure 3.1 presents a comparison of calculated results and the weight that NASAs PDCYL model produced.
Table 3.1: Wing Regression Analysis Data

Aircraft B-720 B-727 B-737 B-747 DC-8 MD-11 MD-83 L-1011 W calc(lbs) 12,177 8,167 4,243 53,545 18,533 38,838 7,796 30,450 W act (lbs) 11,747 8,791 5,414 50,395 19,130 35,157 8,720 28,355 W GTO (lbs) W primary (lbs) 222,000 169,000 149,710 833,000 310,000 602,500 140,000 430,000 18,914 12,388 7,671 68,761 27,924 47,614 11,553 36,101 W total (lbs) 23,528 17,860 10,687 88,202 35,330 62,985 15,839 46,233 W PDCYL(lbs) 13,962 8,688 5,717 52,950 22,080 33,617 6,953 25,034
80
Figure 3.1: Linear Regression Correlation between PDCYL and Calculated Results
Figure 3.2: :Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Load Bearing Weight and Calculated Results
81
Figure 3.3: Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Primary Weight and Calculated Results
Figure 3.4: : Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Total Structural Weight and Calculated Results
82
3.1.2 Fuselage
Table 3.2 presents the weight breakdown for the fuselage of the eight aircraft documented in reference 1. Figure 3.5 compares the calculated data with that produce by NASAs PDCYL model. The regression lines comparing the calculated weight with the actual weight are presented in Figures 3.6 through 3.8. The correlation coefficients are displayed on the plots.
Table 3.2: Fuselage Regression Analysis Data
Aircraft B-720 B-727 B-737 B-747 DC-8 MD-11 MD-83 L-1011 W calc(lbs) 6,544 5,530 3,693 30,615 10,056 21,726 5,172 16,401 W act (lbs) 9,013 8,790 5,089 39,936 13,312 25,970 9,410 28,355 W GTO (lbs) W primary (lbs) 222,000 169,000 149,710 833,000 310,000 602,500 140,000 430,000 13,336 12,424 7,435 55,207 18,584 34,999 11,880 41,804 W total (lbs) 19,383 17,586 11,831 72,659 24,886 54,936 16,432 52,329 W PDCYL(lbs) 6,545 5,888 3,428 28,039 9,527 20,915 7,443 21,608
Figure 3.5: Linear Regression Correlation between PDCYL and Calculated Model Results
83
Figure 3.6: Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Load Bearing Weight and Calculated Model Results
Figure 3.7: Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Primary Weight and Calculated Model Results
84
Figure 3.8: Linear Regression Correlation between Actual Total Structural Weight and Calculated Model Results
The results calculated by the model presented in this document correlate better for the wing than the fuselage. This could be because there are no tail loads applied to the sized fuselage structure and because curved geometry is not considered in the weight estimate. Including the frame and rib structure in the weight calculations would give better correlation for the both the wing and fuselage.
85
3.2 Finite Element

The following section verifies the in-plane axial stress and shear stress in the model with finite element.
3.2.1 Wing
The wing finite element geometry is given in Figure 3.9. The axial load on the FEM simulating the wing box at the root is given in Figure 3.10. The wing skin modeled as shell elements show stress concentrations at the root of the wing, where the skin meets the spar caps. Figure 3.11 shows the shell element ID numbers so the actual axial stress can be looked up in the output file (f06 file). From Figure 3.10 it appears that the stress from the parametric model lies in between the orange and the yellow region illustrating the large tensile load in the bottom wing skin, blue and light blue illustrating the large compression load in the top wing skin. The stress due to bending in the top and bottom skin is approximately 43ksi.
Figure 3.9: Wing Finite Element Geometry
86
Figure 3.10: Axial Stress in Skin
Figure 3.11: Top Skin Element ID Numbers
87
Figure 3.12: Axial and Shear Stresses in Elements 4213 and 4214 (F06 file)
Figure 3.13: Axial and Shear Stress from Model
It is shown that the stresses in the f06 file, Figure 3.12, are approximately equal to the stresses given in the model presented in this document, Figure 3.13. These stresses are for elements on the top skin of the wing box root, the element ID number are given in Figure 3.11.
88
3.2.2 Fuselage
The fuselage model is a simple un-tapered cylinder. The axial stress distribution is given in Figure 3.14. The axial stress in the model presented in this document is given in Figure 3.15. The f06 file is not displayed because the stress in Figure 3.15 is consistent with the stress in the finite element model, Figure 3.14.
Figure 3.14: Axial Stress
89
Figure 3.15: Axial Stress from Model
Figure 3.16 illustrates the shear stress distribution in the finite element model. Figure 3.17 shows the shear stress distribution calculated from the model presented in this document. The shear stress distribution in the finite element model is consistent with the shear stress distribution calculated in this model.
90
Figure 3.16: Shear Stress
Figure 3.17: Shear Stress Calculated in Model
91
4 Results and Discussion

The baseline and enhanced material case results are presented for CFRP and Aluminum Alloy in Table 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. The weight estimate includes the mass of the longitudinal load bearing structure, which for the wing and fuselage structure is the skin and stringers. The percent weight benefit of the enhanced material cases are also presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 (next to the calculated weight values). The CFRP resulting structural load bearing weight calculations neglect whether the optimized thickness is realistic to manufacture along with being a symmetric and balanced laminate. The percent weight benefit is calculated in reference to the baseline material.
92
Table 4.1: CFRP Baseline and Enhanced Material Weights (% Structural Weight Reduction)
Baseline Material Wing Structural Weight (lb) Wide Body Narrow Body 16,737 3,177 14,829 (11.4%) 2,860 (10.0%) 15,811 (5.5%) 3,011 (5.2%) 16,635 (0.6%) 3,167 (0.3%) Improved Composite 1 Improved Composite 2 Baseline+25%OHC Baseline+25%OHT Improved Composite 3 Baseline+50% Elastic Modulus
Fuselage Structural Weight Wide Body Narrow Body w/ Min Gauge =55mil Narrow Body Min Gauge=30mil Total Structural Weight (lb) Wide Body 27,705 25,383 (8.4%) 26,770 (3.4%) 26,834 (3.1%) 10,968 2,337 10,554 (3.8%) 2,337 (0.0%) 10,959 (0.1%) 2,337 (0.0%) 10,199 (7.0%) 2,189 (6.3%)
1,923
1,923 (0.0%)
1,923 (0.0%)
1,713 (10.9%)
Narrow Body w/ Min Gauge =55mil Narrow Body Min Gauge = 30mil
5,514
5,197 (5.7%)
5,348 (3.0%)
5,356 (2.9%)
5,100
4,783 (6.2%)
4,934 (3.3%)
4,880 (4.3%)
The fatigue or strength depends on the material notch toughness, nominal load, structure geometry, notch geometry, detectable crack size, and loading cycle profile for the aircraft. The fatigue performance for the Aluminum Alloys currently used in industry is unknown. Rather enhanced fatigue performance cases are studied to determine a range of weight benefit from the application of Aluminum Alloy with high fatigue performance.
93
Table 4.2: Aluminum Baseline and Enhanced Material Weights (% Structural Weight Reduction)
Advanced Alloy 1 +10% Elastic Modulus Advanced Alloy 2 +50%Fatigue Performance (36 ksi) Advanced Alloy 3 +100% Fatigue Performance (48 ksi)
Baseline Material Wing Structural Weight (lb) Wide Body Narrow Body Fuselage Structural Weight Wide Body Narrow Body Total Fuselage Structural Weight Wide Body Narrow Body 49,621 9,936 16,575 3,749 33,046 6,187
32,941 (0.3%) 6,160 (0.4%)
25,998 (21.3%) 4,915 (20.6%)
22,595 (31.6%) 4,305 (30.4%)
16,560 (0.1%) 3,749 (0.0%)
12,585 (24.1%) 2,688 (28.3%)
11,319 (31.7%) 2,277 (39.3%)
49,501 (0.2%) 9,909 (0.3%)
38583 (22.2%) 7603 (23.5%)
33,914 (31.7%) 6582 (33.8%)
To judge the consistency of the method used to determine the stiffener spacing and geometry, the baseline material structural weights are compared to their structural un-stiffened configuration weight. It is determined that all the structure is stiffness critical if un-stiffened. The ratio of the stiffened to un-stiffened weight for the wing and fuselage of the wide and narrow body aircraft is given in Table 4.3. It is desired that the numbers between the CFRP and Aluminum Alloy for the wing and fuselage of each aircraft are similar. This helps insure that a weight performance benefit for the application CFRP over Aluminum is not biased because the CFRP is more efficient than the Aluminum Alloy stiffened configuration.
94
Table 4.3: Stiffened and Un-stiffened Structural Weights

Baseline Material Stiffened Configuration Weight (lb) Wide Body Wing CFRP Aluminum Fuselage CFRP Aluminum Narrow Body Wing CFRP Aluminum Fuselage CFRP (MG = 55mil) Aluminum 2,229 3,749 7,580 12,868 0.29 0.29 3,147 6,187 12,515 24,178 0.25 0.26 10,538 16,575 26,610 44,210 0.40 0.37 16,601 33,046 52,011 100,509 0.32 0.33 Baseline Material Un-Stiffened Configuration Weight (lb) Stiffened/Un-Stiffened Weight (lb/lb)
How does the weight performance benefits from the application of CFRP and Aluminum Alloy on a medium transport aircraft compare with that on a small transport aircraft?
The results indicate that the small transport aircraft will have an almost equal structural weight benefit that the medium aircraft has using CFRP compared with Aluminum Alloy. Figure 4.1 plots the weight benefit of CFRP compared to Aluminum Alloy for the narrow and wide body aircraft for a range of fatigue performance. If the Aluminum wide and narrow body aircraft have different fatigue performance behavior they will see different benefits from the application of CFRP as their primary load bearing structural material. When the minimum laminate thickness is found for each structural region, allowing a 5% variation in the target laminate family (i.e. for the fuselage [25/50/25]), a reduction is seen in the weight benefit of
95
CFRP when compared to Aluminum Alloy. The decrease is more dramatic in the case of the narrow body. Using the ply thickness of the current material used on the medium jet transports, the narrow body will see a weight penalty when compared to an Aluminum Alloy with fatigue strength above 33ksi. Therefore, based on this analysis, with the current laminate thicknesses the narrow body will not have the weight benefit from the application of CFRP that the wide body does. When neglecting minimum laminate thickness, the narrow body will have a similar weight performance benefit as the wide body. The total structural weight values of CFRP aircraft is in Table 4.1. and for Aluminum Alloy in Table 4.2.
60.0% WB Percent Weight Benefit NB Percent Weight Benefit MG=55mil Percent Weight Benefit with Manufacturable Laminate Thickness 29.7% 29.3% 20.0% 18.8% 20.8% 20.0% 18.3%
50.0% 45.9% 45.3% Weight Reduction of CFRP Compared to Aluminum (%) 40.0% 38.4%
% Re duction = 1
WCFRP 100 W Al
30.0%
10.0%
9.9%
0.0% 20 -10.0% 25 30 35 -6.2% 40 45 50
-20.0% -22.7% -30.0%

Fatigue=24ksi Fatigue=36ksi
-40.0% Fatigue Strength (ksi)
Fatigue=48ksi
Figure 4.1: Percent Load Bearing Structural Weight Benifit of CFRP over Aluminum for a Range of Potential Fatigue Performance
96
What are the critical structural design drivers with the application of CFRP on the medium and small commercial transport and how do they compare?
The data from Table 4.1 shows that the wide and narrow body CFRP wing experiences the largest reduction in weight from OHC enhancement (Improved Composite Case 1). Therefore OHC is the most weight sensitive design driver for the CFRP wing box structure on both the wide and narrow body aircraft. OHC is a critical design driver because it is the lowest material strength allowable governing the design. The wide body CFRP wing has more of a weight benefit because it has thicker skin and a larger load. Enhancing a lower stress allowable yields a larger thickness benefit than increasing high stress allowable this is illustrated in Figure 4.2. This is also the reason why increasing OHC yields more of a weight performance benefit than enhancing OHT. Figure 4.3 shows the failure mode distribution on the wing structure, which is the same for the wide and narrow body and all subsequent material enhancements except Improved Composite 1 applied to the narrow body. Relationship of thickness change with the change of low and high stress allowables is given in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.3 shows an increase in the stiffness critical region on the upper wing skin of the narrow body aircraft with a 25% OHC enhancement.
( 50)
Design All 1 = 0 Design = All Design
M .S . =
97
Thickness
tl
>
l
th
Design Stress
Figure 4.2: Skin Thickness Design Stress Relationship
98
Skin OHC Fracture Skin Compression Buckling Spar Web Shear-Bending Buckling Skin OHT Fracture
Top Skin
Spar Web
Bottom Skin
% Length
10%
11%
10%
16%
6%
15%
16%
16%
Figure 4.3: Failure Mode Distribution on Wing Structure for Wide and Narrow body (CFRP Baseline and all cases except for narrow body Improved Composite 1)
99
Skin OHC Fracture Skin Compression Buckling Spar Web Shear-Bending Buckling Skin OHT Fracture
Top Skin
Spar Web
Bottom Skin
% Length
10%
11%
10%
16%
6%
15%
16%
16%
Figure 4.4: Failure Mode Distribution for Narrow Body Wing (CFRP Improved Composite 1)
The most weight sensitive material enhancement for the wide and narrow body CFRP fuselage is the 50% increase in the Elastic Modulus. Table 4.1 shows that in the case of the relaxed minimum gauge the narrow body experiences more of a weight benefit than the wide body from the stiffness enhancement. The wide body has less of a benefit from stiffness enhancement because a portion of its fuselage is OHC fracture critical. If the narrow body fuselage structure is limited by minimum gauge than the wide body has more of a weight benefit from stiffness enhancement. Both
100
aircrafts fuselage structure has OHT fracture critical sections. They have a small amount of weight benefit from OHT enhancement because, as stated earlier, enhancements for allowables at large stress levels, relative to the structure, have a smaller decrease in thickness or no decrease in thickness if limited by minimum gauge. Figure 4.5 shows the failure mode distribution for the wide body fuselage. Figure 4.6 shows the failure mode distribution for the narrow body fuselage, which has the same failure mode distribution for all subsequent material enhancements.
MG WB
Skin OHT Fracture Skin Compression-Shear Buckling Skin/Stringer Compression Buckling Skin OHC Fracture Minimum Gauge Baseline
MG
MG
WB Improved Composite 1 (+25%OHC)
MG
MG
WB Improved Composite 2 (+25%OHT)
MG
MG
WB Improved Composite 3 (+50%E)
MG
MG
%Fuselage Length
24.5%
12.5%
15.2%
18.0%
12.4%
17.4%
Figure 4.5: Failure Mode Distribution on Wide Body Fuselage (CFRP)
101
MG NB
Skin OHT Fracture Skin Compression-Shear Buckling Skin/Stringer Compression Buckling Skin OHC Fracture Minimum Gauge Baseline
MG MG
%Fuselage Length 24.5% 12.5% 15.2% 18.0%
MG MG
17.4%
MG
12.4%
NB
Improved Composite 1
MG MG
NB Improved Composite 2
MG MG
MG
MG MG
NB Improved Composite 3
MG MG
MG
MG MG
%Fuselage Length
MG MG MG
MG MG
24.5%
12.5%
15.2%
18.0%
12.4%
17.4%
Figure 4.6: Failure Mode Distribution on Narrow Body Fuselage (CFRP)
The most weight sensitive material enhancement is OHC for both the wide and narrow body aircraft total load bearing structural weight. The second most weight sensitive material enhancement is OHT for the wide and narrow body aircraft
Though OHT is neither the CFRP wing or fuselage structures most weight sensitive material enhancement it provides more of a weight reduction in the wing
102
than Improved Composite 3 provides in the fuselage structure. If the narrow body minimum gauge is relaxed to 30 mils the Improved Composite 3 stiffness enhancement is the second most weight sensitive material case for the total load bearing structural weight. There are portions of the fuselage structure that are OHT critical where the critical stress is hoop stress. The skin on the OHT critical (pressurization critical) portions of the fuselage are so thin that you see little weight benefit from Improved Composite 2, in the narrow body case there is no weight benefit because the skin thickness is limited by minimum gauge.
The wide and narrow body wing has a similar critical failure mode pattern. Both aircrafts have OHT critical lower skins of the wing and a large percentage of the top skin OHC critical. The OHC enhancement provided more of a weight benefit than OHT, even though its critical in a smaller portion of the wing, because its a much lower stress allowable therefore thickness reduction is more sensitive to OHC enhancement.
The primary failure mode in the wide and narrow body fuselage is compression-shear buckling. Only one fuselage section of the wide body is OHC critical, the narrow body has none. There is a large weight benefit in the wide body fuselage when the OHC is enhanced because it has the largest reduction in skin thickness.
103
What are the critical failure modes on the Aluminum Alloy wide and narrow body aircraft structure?
The wide and narrow body airframe is most sensitive to fatigue performance. The Aluminum Alloy wing and fuselage have a large buckling critical portion of there structure but a 10% stiffness enhancement shows very little weight benefit in the thickness range. The wide and narrow body wing show similar weight benefits when enhancing the Fatigue strength. The failure mode distribution is similar for the Aluminum Alloy wide and narrow body aircraft along with all subsequent material enhancements. The failure distribution for the Aluminum Alloy wing structure on the wide and narrow body aircraft is given in Figure 4.7.
104
Skin Compressive Yield at Ultimate Skin Compression Buckling Spar Web Shear-Bending Buckling Skin Fatigue Tension Failure
Top Skin
Spar Web
Bottom Skin
% Length
10% 0
11% 0.11
10% 0.21
16% 0.37
6% 0.43
15% 0.58
16% 0.74
16% 0.9
Figure 4.7: Failure Mode Distribution for Wide Body and Narrow Body Wing (Aluminum)
105
The Aluminum Alloy narrow body fuselage has the most weight benefit because it is entirely fatigue critical due to pressurization. Table 4.2 shows weight benefits of the Aluminum material enhancements which include 10% Elastic Modulus, 50%Fatigue performance, and 100% Fatigue performance enhancement. The material fatigue enhancement cases give a range of possible fatigue performance for an Aluminum Alloy aircraft similar to the size of the narrow body and wide body aircraft. Figure 4.8 shows the failure mode distribution for the Aluminum Alloy wide body fuselage and all subsequent material enhancements. Figure 4.9 shows the failure mode distribution on the Aluminum Alloy narrow body fuselage and all subsequent material enhancements.
The Aluminum Alloy wide body aircraft with a fatigue performance of 24 ksi is almost entirely fatigue critical from fuselage pressurization and bending tension stress, except for a fracture critical section above aft of the wing box. The wide body Advanced Alloy 2 optimized failure mode output and state of stress with the respective critical load case is shown in Figure 4.8. Advanced Alloy 3 which increases the fatigue performance to 48ksi has a failure mode scheme where the entire forward fuselage is compression and shear buckling critical and the mid-section (above the wing box) is tension fracture critical from load case 2. The failure modes are similar for the narrow body aircraft except there is a larger area of the skin that is fatigue fracture critical from pressurization for each material enhancement case. Therefore the critical failure modes on the wide and narrow body aircraft include:
106
1) Fatigue fracture of skin from tension stress due to pressurization and bending from load case 1 (2.5g maneuver). 2) Ultimate tension strength fracture of skin and stringers from bending induced by load case 2 (-2.0g hard landing).
Skin Fatigue Tension Failure Skin/Stringer Ultimate Tension Fracture Skin Compression-Shear Buckling Skin/Stringer Compression Buckling
WB
Baseline
WB
Advanced Alloy 1 (+10%E)
WB Advanced Alloy 2 (+50%Fatigue)
WB Advanced Alloy 3 (+100%Fatigue)
%Fuselage Length
24.5%
12.5%
15.2%
18.0%
12.4%
17.4%
Figure 4.8: Failure Mode Distribution for Wide Body Fuselage (Aluminum)
107
MG NB
Skin Fatigue Tension Failure Skin/Stringer Ultimate Tension Fracture Skin Compression-Shear Buckling Skin/Stringer Compression Buckling Minimum Gauge Baseline
NB
Advanced Alloy 1 (+10%E)
NB Advanced Alloy 2 (+50%Fatigue)
NB Advanced Alloy 3 (+100%Fatigue)
MG MG
%Fuselage Length
MG MG
MG
24.5%
12.5%
15.2%
18.0%
12.4%
17.4%
Figure 4.9: : Failure Mode Distribution for Narrow Body Fuselage (Aluminum)
108
5 Conclusions
The wide and narrow body aircraft yield similar failure mode distributions for CFRP Laminate. The wing structure has the most weight benefit from the enhancement of the OHC allowable and the fuselage structure has the most weight benefit from the enhancement of stiffness.
In the case of an Aluminum Alloy structure, the wide and narrow body results show similar failure mode distributions for the wing and fuselage. The Aluminum Alloy Structure is primarily fatigue failure critical and has the largest weight reduction with the enhancement of fatigue performance.
Since the wide and narrow body results show similar failure mode distributions it is not the type of failure that limits the feasibility of CFRP laminate being applied to the narrow body aircraft structure but rather the range of thickness of the laminate. With Improved Composite 3 (25% Elastic Modulus enhancement) more than half of the narrow body fuselage structure was limited by Minimum gauge. Therefore the weight benefit from the application of CFRP laminate on the narrow body fuselage structure is limited by minimum gauge of the laminate.
109
6 Recommendations
To improve the accuracy of the optimization model the following could be done:
1) Improving the accuracy of the critical fatigue stress (for aluminums) by conducting a more detailed fatigue methodology.
2) Study multiple materials for the different sections of the aircraft. This could include different types of aluminums, CFRP laminates, laminas, or fabric for different wing and fuselage sections.
3) Studying different structural concepts such as Honeycomb Sandwich and Iso-grid configurations.
4) Obtain and apply information on criteria for different failure modes such as strength after impact for CFRP, pillowing of fuselage skin due to pressurization, and delaminating due to joint flexure for CFRP.
5) Applying methodology for sizing ribs and frames to include in the load bearing structural weight calculation.
6) Applying load cases that subject the structure to torsion.
110
7) Use linear regression to scale the takeoff weight of the aircraft to the calculate load bearing structural weight in order to approximate the change in load on the structure.
8) Include tail loads to size the fuselage structure.
9) Calculate actual producible laminate thicknesses that correspond to ply thickness and laminate family.
To simplify the model and reduce computational load the following could be done:
1) Produce a basic axial, transverse, and shear running load profile for the wing and fuselage for a class of aircraft (w/ similar geometry). So that it could be mapped for different size aircraft. The running loads should be specific to different substructure.
2) Specify reasonable convergence criteria to reduce the number of iterations necessary to obtain an optimum thickness.
111
References
(1) Ardema M.D., Chambers M.C., Patron A.P., Hahn A.S., Miura H., Moore M.D., 1996. Analytical Fuselage and Wing Weight Estimation of Transport Aircraft, NASA Technical Memorandum 110392
(2) Curtis, Howard D. Fundamentals of Aircraft Structural Analysis 1997. Richard D. Irwin, a Times Mirror Higher Education Group, Inc.
(3) Raymer, D.P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach 3rd Ed, 1999. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
(4) MIL-HDBK-17-3D, Polymer Matrix Composites Volume 3. Material Usage, Design, and Analysis 1997, U.S. Department of Defense.
(5) Hibbler, Mechanics of Materials Fifth Edition 2003, Pearson Education, Inc.
(6) Lan, E.L. Roskam, J. Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance Third Printing, 2003. Design, Analysis and Research Corporation (DARcorperation)
(7) Bruhn, E.F. Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, 1973. Jacobs Publishing, Inc.
112
(8) Kollar, L.P. Mechanics of Composite Structures, 2003. Cambridge University Press.
113
A Appendix
Figure A.1: Medium Body Jet Transport
A.1
Figure A.2: V-N Diagram Specifications for Military Airplanes (Ref 6)
A.2
B Appendix
Example Calculation to Determine Stringer Dimensions and Spacing Using the running load from load case 1, wing station 66.
N = 9.5 kips in = 43ksi(ultimate) Limit = 29ksi(compression)
ohc
t skin =
ohc
= 0.331in
Figure 7.12 (Ewing Buckling Presentation), simply supported boundary conditions are used. Contribution of effective width is neglected because of the heavy thickness of the skin (Bruhn).
cr
t = KE skin b
a = 2( ss) K = 3.6 b b = t skin
cr
KE
= (0.331in )
(3.6)(14.5msi ) = 14in (29ksi )
a = 2 a = 28in. b a 28 Le = = = 23in. c 1.5 Note: The calculation of the stringer spacing b above is only used to estimate the effective length of the stiffener column. A slenderness ratio is chosen from the EulerJohnson Column Curve (Figure 4) for a crippling stress of Le
cc = 30ksi .
= 24 = 0.958
B.1
The following is a derivation to calculate all the solutions for the dimensions of an I-beam section type stiffener for a radius of gyration, .
2 1.8
bf
1.6 1.4 1.2 bf (in) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 bw (in) 2.8 3 3.2 3.4
bw
The following dimensions were chosen for the I-beam section type stiffener. b f = 1.0in bw = 2.4in.
Since the crippling stress is known an estimate for the thickness comes from Figure 3.
bf bw
0.4
bw t stiffener
= 49 t stiffener = 0.049in
Astiffener = (2b f + bw )t stiffener = [2(1.0in ) + 2.4in](0.049in ) = 0.216in 2
The following is a method of estimating the contribution of each stiffener to the second moment of area. The width of the top skin at W.S. 66 is:
B.2
in width = (4.077 ft )12 = 49in ft . n: number of stringers
Contribution of area for n stiffeners on the tops skin per unit thickness is: A 0.216in 2 n = = 4.4 10 3 in n width 49in
) (
From the past analysis it is known that this wing station is open hole compression (top skin) fracture critical. To estimate the number of stringers it is necessary to find the stress at which the following equations converge.
x =0
t skin
t skin 0.331in = (29ksi ) A 0.331in + 4.4 10 3 in. n + width
cr
0.331in. t = KE width n = 3.6(14.5msi ) 49in. n
B.3
Converging Stress
50 45 40 35 Stress (ksi) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of Stringers Axial Stress Critical Buckling Stress
The equations above converge between 3 and 4 stringers at a stress of about 28ksi. An approximate stringer spacing is between the two calculated values below.
b1 = b2 =
width 49in. = 16in. 3 n1 width 49in. = 12in. 4 n2
b2 b b1 12in. b 16in.
B.4
Wide Body
25
20
Running loads (lb/in)
15
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Wing Station (ft)
Figure B.1:WB Wing Running Loads

Narrow Body
10
7 Running Loads (lb/in)
0 0 10 20 30 Wing Span (ft) 40 50 60
Figure B.2: NB Wing Running Loads
B.5
bf
bw
80
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
100
120
bf
bw
70
60
50
40
30
20
Figure B.3: Crippling of CFRP Laminate "I"-Section Beam With Ex=14.5Msi
10
0 Crippling Stress (ksi)
20
40
B.6
bw/t
60
90
Johnson & Euler Column Curves
80
Euler Curve
cr =
2E (Le )2
70
Johnson Curve

cr = cc 1
E=14.5Msi
1 cc 4 2 E
Le
60
cr
50
Ksi
40
30
20
Figure B.4: Euler Column Buckling of CFRP Laminate Ex=14.5Msi

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
10
0 90 100
B.7
Le
3
we
2.5
C.G. of Stiffener Alone A0: Area of Stiffener Alone 0: Radius of Gyration of Stiffener Alone
S 0
3.0
1.5
2.8 2.6 2.4
Width
1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0
3.5
4.5
Figure B.5: Radius of Gyration for Euler Buckling Calculation with Contribution of Effective
B.8
we t skin A0
C Appendix
Figure C.1: 7075 Aluminum Alloy Mechanical Properties (Ref 4)
C.1
Figure C.2: "K" Values for Compression and Shear Panel Buckling (Ref 7)
C.2
Example of Composite beam stress correction on Wing Box Simplified Wing Box (Reference 8) Initial Stress Distribution E1 t1 (-)compression
E2
t2
(+) tension Where E1>E2
n=
E1 E2
t1 = nt1
Making the whole Wing box equivalent area with respect to material 2 t1<t1'
Stress Distribution after equated to material 2 t 1' (-)compression
t2
(+) Tension
Update centroid with new area distribution
y =
yA A
Update moment of inertial about the centroid
I = A( yi yc ) 2
Update the axial stress on top skin (material 1)
x =
M ( yi yc ) I xx
Apply transformation factor again to get actual stress in top skin (material 1)
x = n x
x in this example is the stress in the top skin
Figure C.3: Stiffness Correction
C.3
D Appendix
Sample Calculation Sample Hand calculations are done to clarify the methodology used to size the fuselage structure. Fuselage section 46 is used to verify the optimization calculations. The sample hand calculations are done by treating the fuselage cross section as a thin walled tube. Geometry and Area Distribution Equivalent Skin Area
t crown _ skin = 0.1095in

A stringer Vy
t crown _ stringer = 0.0300in
yG
Mz Askin
y x z
t belly _ stringer = 0.1106in t belly _ skin = 0.1825in
Figure D.1: Illustration of Fuselage Modeled as Idealized Tube

Fuselage Section 46
Figure D.2: Optimized Thicknesses for Fuselage Section 46
D.1
An equivalent skin thickness is calculated to take into account the area of the stringers in addition to the skin area. Also, the equivalent skin thickness is calculated to use the equation for the center of mass, first, and the second moment of area that are derived from a thin walled tube. Figure 3.1 illustrates the fuselage analysis with the internal loads applied to a thin walled tube.
The stringer panel lengths bi , are given in the calculations below. There are approximately 30 stringers on each the crown and belly of the fuselage of the wide body aircraft. The equivalent skin thickness is crown and belly of the fuselage separately. Crown b flange = 0.5in bweb = 1.25in bcap = 1.5in Acrown _ stringers = [2(0.5in ) + 2(1.25in ) + (1.5in )](0.03in )(30 stringers ) = 4.5in 2 t eq _ crown _ stringers = 4.5in 2 = 0.01256in 12 in (19 ft ) ft 2 = 0.1095in + 0.01256in = 0.1220in t eq A . is the calculated Area for the
t eq _ crown Acrown
19 ft 12 in ft (0.1220in ) = 43.69in 2 = 2
D.2
Belly Abelly _ stringers = [2(0.5in ) + 2(1.25in ) + (1.5in )](0.1106in )(30stringers ) = 16.59in 2 t eq _ belly _ stringers = 16.92in 2 = 0.0463in 12 in (19 ft ) ft 2 = 0.1825in + 0.0463in = 0.2288in
t eq _ belly Abelly
19 ft 12 in ft (0.2288in ) = 81.94in 2 = 2
Center of Mass
Figure D.3: Lateral Cut of Fuselage as a Idealized Tube
Below the first and second moment of area is derived assuming the area equation of a thin walled tube. The radius of a lateral cut of the fuselage is r , and is illustrated in Figure 3.3. is the angle from the center of the circle as illustrated in Figure 3.3. y
D.3
is the lateral distance from the center of the circle. The First Moment of Area (i.e.
ydA ) is used to find the center of mass and the shear flow at the center of the
fuselage. The Moment of Inertia I zz , is the Second Moment of Area (i.e. Figure 3.4 gives the center of mass given by the MATLAB code.
dA
).
1 y g = ydA = A
ya
i =1 61 i
61
a
i =1
2 2 ydA = (r sin )(rt )d = r t (1 cos ) = 2r t 0 0
Ahalf _ tube = rt
2r 2 t 2 2 (19 ft )(12 in ft ) = r= = 72.57in 2 rt Acrown y g _ crown + Abelly y g _ belly 43.69in 2 81.94in 2 (72.57in ) = yg = = 22.09in Acrown + Abelly 43.69in 2 + 81.94in 2
y g _ half _ tube =
Figure D.4: Center of Mass (in)
Second Moment of Area The equation derived for the second moment of area assumes a thin walled tube of uniform thickness with its center of mass in the center of the circle. Since the actual center of mass is not in the center of the circle the equation for the second moment of
D.4
( ) area needs to be uncoupled using the parallel axis theorem (i.e. I x + A y y c ).

2
Figure 4.5 shows the second moment of area calculated by the MATLAB code.
I zz = y dA = ai ( y i y g )
61 2 i =1
dA = (r sin ) rtd =r t =
2 3 0
D 3t
8 (0 y g )2 = (0 22.09)2 = 785,731in 4
I zz =
D 3
t eq _ crown + t eq _ belly 2 8
3
A crown + Abelly 2
(19 ft 3 )12 in ft

0.1220in + 0.2288in 2 2 2 43.69in + 81.94in 8 2
Figure D.5: Second Moment of Area (in4) Internal Loads The optimized structure of fuselage section 46 is driven by load case 2 (-2g hard landing). The shear and moment values in fuselage section 46 are given below and are verified in the MATLAB code in Figure 3.6.
V y = 5.92 10 5 lbs M z = 2.725 10 8 lbs in
D.5
Figure D.6: Internal Loads (shear(lbs), moment(lbs*in))
Internal Stress Maximum Principle Stress in Fuselage Crown The skin on the crown of fuselage section 46 is OHT critical, therefore the maximum principle stress in the crown of the fuselage is calculated below. It is assumed that the failure takes place at the top of the crown where the axial stress is the greatest. The top of the crown there is no shear stress so the max principle stress equals the axial stress and the minimum principle stress is the transverse tension stress from pressurization. Figure 3.7 shows the principle stresses given in the MATAB code.
x _ pressure
19 ft 12 in ft (18 psi ) 2 Pr = 9,370 psi = = 2(0.1095in ) 2t 19 ft 12 in ft (18 psi ) 2 Pr = 18,740 psi = = (0.1095in ) t
y _ pressure
D.6
19 ft 12 in ft 2.725 10 lb in ( 22.09in ) 2 M zc = 47,197 psi x _ bending = = 4 I 785,731in x = x _ pressure + x _ bending = 9,370 psi + 47,197 psi = 56,567 psi
y = y _ pressure = 18,740 psi
1 = x = 56.57ksi 2 = y = 18.74ksi
Figure D.7: Maximum and Minimum Principle Stress in Crown (psi) Minimum Principle Stress in Fuselage Belly The minimum axial compression stress takes place at the very bottom of the belly of the fuselage. At the bottom of the fuselage there is no in-plane shear stress and pressure effects are not taken into account in the axial direction. Since there is no shear stress at the bottom of the fuselage the minimum principle stress is equal to the axial stress and the maximum principle stress is equal to the transverse tension stress
D.7
from pressurization. Figure 3.8 shows the minimum principle stress in the belly of fuselage section 46 calculated by the MATLAB code.
19 ft 12 in ft 2.725 10 lb in ( 22.09in ) 2 M zc = 31,875 psi = x = 4 I 785,731in
1 = 18.74ksi 2 = 31.88ksi
Figure D.8: Minimum Principle Stress in Belly (psi)
Maximum Shear Stress There is no shear fracture of shear buckling failure in fuselage section 46 but the maximum shear stress is calculated for verification of the MATLAB code. The shear flow equation is divided by two (i.e. q = V y Qz
2I
) since there are two shear paths for a
tube in pure bending. Also the very most top and bottom points of a tube have zero in-plane shear stress for a tube in pure bending. Similar to the second moment of area
D.8
the first moment of area needs to be uncoupled to account for a center of mass that is not located at the axis-symmetric center of the tube. This is shown in the calculation below. Figure 3.9 shows the max in-plane shear stress calculated in the MATLAB code. The max shear stress is located in the crown skin so the crown skin thickness tcrown _ skin , is used to calculate the maximum shear stress.
Q x = ydA Q z = 2r 2 (t crown ) + Acrown (0 y g ) = 19 ft 12 in ft 2 3 2 (0.1120in ) + 43.69in [0 ( 22.09 )] = 4,136in 2

2 0
q=
V y Qz 2I z
(5.92 10 lbs )(4,136in ) = 1,558 lbs in (2)(785,731in )

5 3 4
xy _ max_ crown =
q t crown _ skin
lbs in = 14,233 psi = 0.1095in 1,558
D.9
xy _ max
Figure D.9: Max In-plane Shear Stress (psi)
Buckling Stability Buckling Strength of Belly Stringers Crippling To evaluate the buckling stability of a hat stiffener the cross section is broken up into a series of flat plates as shown in Figure 3.10. The edges of the plates that do not deflect during local buckling are subtracted as shown in Figure 3.10. New panel b widths b1 , b2 , and 3 are calculated below to determine the crippling stress.
D.10
b3
b2
b1
Figure D.10: Idealized Stringer Section
b1 = b f t = 0.5in 0.1106in = 0.3894in b3 = bc 2t = 1.5in 2(0.1106in ) = 1.2788in b2 = bw 2t = 1.25in 2(0.1106in) = 1.0288in
The crippling stress is calculated for each of the hat stiffener panels. The flanges are evaluated as one edge free(OEF), and the webs and caps as no edge free(NEF) E condition. E x and y are the in-plane and transverse Modulus of Elasticity respectively. D11 is the in-plane flexural stiffness. E is the Flexural Modulus of Elasticity. Fcc (= cc ) is the crippling stress in the military handbook notation. Fcu (= cu ) is the ultimate compression stress in military handbook notation. b is the width of the panel. t is the belly stringer thickness. The crippling stress of the hat section is a weighted average of the crippling stress of the individual panels. Figure 3.11 shows the crippling stress calculated by the MATLAB code.
D.11
b E F cc Ex (OEF ) = 0.5832 t Ex F cu E b E F cc Ex ( NEF ) = 0.9356 t Ex F cu E where E= 12(1 xy 2 ) D11 t3
Ex E y Fcu Ex E y Fcu
0.786
0.842
E x = E y = 8.6msi F cu = 70ksi D11 = 0.09523E x t stringer + 52.12 = 0.09523(8.6msi )(0.1106in ) + 52.12 = 1160.11lbs in
3 3
E=
12(1 0.33 2 )(1160.1lbs in )
(0.1106in )3
= 9.17 msi 70 10 3 psi 8.6 10 6 psi

0.784
F cc = 0.5832 0.3894in 9.17msi 0.1106in 8.60msi F cu

1
9.17 msi = 1.45 8.60msi 9.17 msi = 1.095 8.60msi 9.17 msi = 0.912 8.60msi
F cc cu F F cc cu F F cu F
cc
1.0288in 9.17 msi 70 10 3 psi = 0.9356 0.1106in 8.60msi 8.6 10 6 psi 1.2788in 9.17 msi 70 10 3 psi = 0.9356 0.1106in 8.60msi 8.6 10 6 psi cc F 2 cu F =
Hat _ Stiffener
0.842
2
0.842
b
1
cc F b + 1 + 2 cu 2 F 2 2b1 + 2b2 + b3
F cc b cu F
3
2(1.450 )(0.3894in ) + 2(1.095)(1.0288in ) + (0.912 )(1.2788in ) = 1.105 2(0.3894in + 1.0288in ) + 1.2788in cc = Fcc = (1.105)(70ksi ) = 77.37ksi =
D.12
cc
Figure D.11: Crippling Stress of Belly Stringer
Local Center of Mass Figure 3.12 shows the geometry of the hat stiffener. For this calculation y i is the lateral position of the hat stiffeners individual panels center of mass. is the angle of the hat stiffeners webs. The hat stiffener is symmetric about its lateral center so the webs are both at the same angle. The hat stiffener center of mass is the weighted average of the individual panels center of mass.
bc
bw y yc yw yf *yi is lateral location of bi bf
Figure D.12: Geometry of Hat Stiffener yf = 0 y w = 0.5in y c = 1.0in
y G _ hat =
2(0 )(0.5in ) + 2(0.5in )(1.25in ) + (1.5in )(1.0in ) = 0.55in 2(0.5in + 1.25in ) + 1.5in
D.13
Local Second Moment of Area The second moment of area is calculated below. It is calculated for each panel and then added together. Each panels second moment of area is the sum of their local second moment of area and the parallel axis theorem calculation with respect to the center of mass of the cross section. As in previous calculations the subscripts; f , w , and c stand for the flange, web, and cap respectively.
2 1 3 I f = 2 b f t stringer + b f t stringer y f y g _ hat = 12 1 3 2 2 (0.5in )(0.1106in ) + (0.5in )(0.1106in )(0 0.55in ) = 0.0336in 4 12
1 3 2 I w = 2 bw t stringer (1 cos(2 ) ) + bw t stringer ( y w y g _ hat ) = 24 1 3 2 2 (1.25in ) (0.1106in )(1 cos 2 53 ) + (1.25in )(0.1106in )(0.5in 0.55in ) = 0.0237in 4 24 1 3 I c = bc t stringer + bc t stringer ( y c y g _ hat ) 2 = 12 1 (1.5in )(0.1106)3 + (1.5in )(0.1106in )(1.0in 0.55in) 2 = 0.0338in 4 12 I hat = I f + I w + I c = 0.0336in + 0.0237in + 0.0338in = 0.0911in 4
Area
Ahat = 2(b f + bw ) + bc t stringer = [2(0.5in + 1.25in ) + 1.5in](0.1106in ) = 0.553in 2
Radius of Gyration
I = A
0.0911in 4 = 0.4058in 0.5530in 2
D.14
Effective Length
L = 20in c = 1.5 L 20in Le = = = 16.33in c 1.5
Actual and Critical Slenderness Ratio
Le
16.33in = 40.24 0.4058in
2 2 Le = = 46.84 = 3 cc 77.37 10 psi crit Ex 8.60 10 6 psi
Since the critical slenderness ratio is larger than that of the stringer, the stringer will buckle in-elastically.
Stringer Buckling Strength 1 L cr = cc 1 2 cc e 4 E x = 48.81ksi

2 2 1 77.37 10 3 psi 16.33in = 77.37 ksi 1 2 6 4 8.60 10 psi 0.4058in
D.15
Effective Width The belly skin thickness t skin is used to calculate the effective width of the belly
stringers. The safety factor S .F . = 1.5 is used because the skin buckles at limit load. we = (0.85)t skin = 2.52in E x _ skin E x _ stringer 1.5 = (0.85)t skin
(1.5)E x
cr
stiff
= (0.85)(0.1858in )
(1.5)8.60 10 6 psi
49.05 10 3 psi
we
we
Figure D.13: Hat Stiffener Including Effective Width
Local Center of Mass Including Effective Width y we = 0 t skin 0.1825in = 0.55in + = 0.6413in 2 2 Ahat y _ hat + 2 we t skin y we 0.5530in 2 (0.6413in ) + 0 g y = = 0.2408in = g Ahat + 2 we t skin 0.5530in 2 + 2(2.520in )(0.1825in ) y _ hat = y g _ hat + g
D.16
Local Second Moment of Area Including Effective Width The subscript we , represent the second moment of area of the effective width of the skin. I we = = 1 (2)we t skin 3 + 2we t skin ( y we y g ) 2 12
2 (2.520in )(0.1825in )3 + 2(2.520in )(0.1825in )(0 0.2408in) 2 = 0.0559in 4 12 2 I hat = I hat + Ahat ( y _ hat y ) 2 = 0.0911in 4 + 0.5530in 2 (0.6413in 0.2408in ) = 0.1798in 4 g g
I = I hat + I we = 0.0559in 4 + 0.1798in 4 = 0.2357in 4
Area Including Effective Width A = Ahat + 2 we t skin = 0.5530in 2 + 2(2.520in )(0.1825in ) = 1.4728in 2
Radius of Gyration Including Effective Width

=
I 0.2357in 4 = = 0.40in A 1.4728in 2
Buckling Strength Including Effective Width

2 2 1 77.37 10 3 psi 16.330in 1 cc Le cr = cc 1 2 = 77.37ksi 1 = 2 6 4 E x 4 8.60 10 psi 0.400in = 47.98ksi
cr
Figure D.14: Belly Stringer Buckling Strength
D.17
Margins of Safety Crown skin failure in OHT fracture at limit load The OHT strength is
M .S .OHT =
OHT = 57ksi .
OHT 57.00ksi 1 = 1 = 0.0076 0 56.57ksi 1
Belly skin failure in OHC fracture at limit load ksi The OHC strength is OHC = 32 .
M .S .OHC =
OHC 32.00ksi 1 = 1 = 0.0038 0 31.88ksi 2
Belly stringer failure in buckling at ultimate load M .S . Beam _ Buckling =
cr 47.98ksi 1 = 1 = 0.0031 0 (1.5) x (1.5)(31.88ksi )
The method used for sample calculations is accurate enough to show the critical margins of safety are approximately zero. Therefore the MATLAB optimization has been verified with the sample calculations. Figure 3.15 verifies that the crown and belly skin are fracture critical, the crown stingers are not critical and are limited by minimum gauge, and the belly stringer are buckling failure critical. The fracture margin of safety equations are given in appendix B.
D.18
Thickness(in)
Failure Mode 1)Fracture 2)Buckling
Fuselage Section 46
Margins of Safety 1
M.S. > 0, so crown stringers are not critical and are governed by minimum gauge.
Figure D.15: Output for WB CFRP Baseline
D.19
t3 t cr = K c E N x _ cr = K c E 2 b b t3 t cr = K s E N x _ cr = K s E 2 b b tskin N w 3 = x Kc E N xy h = KE s 3
1 1 2
tskin
Fuselage Axial load from bending only Un_pressurized
cr = Cb E = Cb E
t r 2t 2 N cr = Cb E D Nx D t= 2Cb E
2t D
D.20
Sensitivity Criteria
M .S . =
A 1 = 0 A = D D
D =
Nx t
N D = 2x t t
t A = KE = CEt 2 E = A2 b Ct
2
N E 2 = 2 A3 = 2 x4 = 2 D t Ct Ct Ct t K C= 2 b E 2b 2 D = t Kt 2 t E t E 2 b = = t K t
2
Un-Stiffened Configuration Weights WB CFRP

W.S. (%) Nx LC1 (lb/in) 0% 20.3 11% 20.7 21% 20.9 37% 20.6 43% 19.9 58% 16.2 74% 9.4 90% 1.9 Nx LC2 (lb/in) 8.12 8.28 8.36 8.24 7.96 6.48 3.76 0.76 Nxy LC1 (lb/in) 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.1 3.8 2.7 1.0 ttop_skin 2.80 2.65 2.49 2.22 2.10 1.71 1.18 0.54 tbottom_skin 2.07 1.95 1.84 1.63 1.55 1.26 0.87 0.40 tweb 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.48 0.47 0.36 0.27 0.15 Weight (lb) 6262 4804 5976 1726 3726 2216 967 329 52,011
Total Weight (lb)
D.21
WB Aluminum
Total Weight (lb)
NB CFRP
W.S. (%) 0% 11% 21% 37% 43% 58% 74% 90% Nx LC1 (lb/in) 8.32 8.48 8.57 8.44 8.16 6.64 3.85 0.78 Nx LC2 (lb/in) 3.33 3.39 3.43 3.38 3.26 2.66 1.54 0.31 Nxy LC1 (lb/in) 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.4 ttop_skin 1.57 1.48 1.40 1.24 1.18 0.95 0.66 0.30 tbottom_skin 1.15 1.09 1.03 0.92 0.87 0.70 0.49 0.22 tweb 0.40 0.36 0.33 0.28 0.26 0.21 0.15 0.09 Weight (lb) 1498 1154 1441 417 897 536 235 80 12,515
Total Weight (lb)
NB Aluminum
Total Weight (lb)
D.22
WB CFRP
F.S. (%) 25% 37% 52% 70% 83% 100% Nx LC1 (lb/in) 741 1641 3323 2059 791 320 Nx LC2 (lb/in) -2694 -3787 1177 6615 635 258 (r/t)est 268 226 248 184 466 685 Cb 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.16 0.14 tavg 0.426 0.505 0.461 0.618 0.245 0.166 Weight (lb) 4607 5138 6479 6856 2251 1279 26,610
Total Weight (lb)
WB Al
Total Weight (lb)
NB CFRP
Total Weight (lb)
NB Al
D.23
F.S. (%) 25% 37% 52% 70% 83% 100%
Nx LC1 (lb/in) 432 957 1938 1201 461 186
Nx LC2 (lb/in) -1675 -2312 687 3858 370 150
(r/t)est 252 220 240 175 455 672
Cb 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.17 0.15
tavg 0.309 0.354 0.324 0.447 0.172 0.116
Weight (lb) 2273 2488 3094 3338 1070 606 12,868
Total Weight (lb)
D.24

Wing and Fuselage Structural Optimization Considering Alternative Material

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Wing and Fuselage Structural Optimization Considering Alternative Material

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Wing and Fuselage Structural Optimization Considering Alternative Material Systems By Jonathan Lusk B.S.A.E.

, University of Kansas, 2006

______________________________ Dr. Richard Hale

______________________________ Dr. Stan Rolfe

___________________ Date Project Accepted

Wing and Fuselage Optimization Considering Alternative Material Systems

______________________________ Professor in Charge-Dr. Mark Ewing

______________________________ Dr. Richard Hale

______________________________ Dr. Stan Rolfe

___________________ Date defended

Table 4.3: Stiffened and Un-stiffened Structural Weights.......................................... 95

~ ft in. lb/in lb-in ~ lb/in lb/in in3 ~ ft2 lb in lb lb in. ft in.

Acronyms AR M.S. OHC OHT S.F. W.S. PDCYL

Strain Laminate Flexural Stiffness Response to Transverse

Bending Strain Laminate Transverse Flexural Response to Transverse

Bending Strain Laminate Torsional Flexure Response to In-Plane Torsional

66 1,2i 12su 1cu 1tu

Direction Lamina Ultimate Tensile Strength Transverse to Fiber

Direction Allowable Stress Bending Stress

c cc CL cr cr_stiff cu Design e engine/pylon exp

f fi Fract_sk_Bottom Fract_sk_Top Fract_st_Bottom Fract_st_Top Fracture_Allowable fuselage G GTO h

Discrete Area, Thickness or Stress Notation

stringers su t t_wb tu wing x

1.2 Prior Work

Figure 2.1: Wing Plan form with Kick

Figure 2.2: Wing Chord Distribution

Figure 2.3 Wingbox and Wing Planform

Wingbox to fuselage Intersection

Table 2.1: Wing Model Geometry Values

Units lbs ft ft ~ degrees

WGTO b D AR LE ref exp

123,675 112 13 9.55 40 NA 0.1875 0.10 0.1883

453,000 170 19 9.55 40 NA 0.1875 0.10 0.1883

Figure 2.5: Fuselage Geometry

Table 2.2: Fuselage Model Geometry Values

Narrow Body (NB) Value 123,675 7.8

Wide Body (WB) Value 453,000 9.6

2.2 Stiffened Panel Geometry

Figure 2.6: "I" beam Section Stiffened Panel

Table 2.3: Wing Stiffened Panel Geometry Values (CFRP)

Wide Body (WB) Value 17.0 10.6 34.0 24

Table 2.4: Wing Striffened Panel Geometry Values (Aluminum)

Wide Body (WB) Value 5.7 10.6 11.4 24

Figure 2.7 shows the geometry of the I-section stiffener. The

Figure 2.7: Geometry of an "I"-Beam Section Stiffener

Table 2.5: Wing Stringer Geometry (CFRP)

Units in. in.

Narrow Body (NB) Value 1.00 0.55

Wide Body (WB) Value 2.00 1.30

Table 2.6: Wing Stringer Geometry (Aluminum)

Units in. in.

Narrow Body (NB) Value 0.40 0.25

Wide Body (WB) Value 1.00 0.65

Figure 2.8: "Hat"-Section Stiffened Panel

Table 2.7: Fuselage Stiffened Panel Geometry Values (CFRP)

Parameter Name and Description Panel Width Panel Length

Narrow Body (NB) Value

Wide Body (WB) Value 11.0 10.6 16.4 24

Table 2.8: Fuselage Stiffened Panel Geometry Values (Aluminum)

Parameter Name and Description Panel Width Panel Length

Narrow Body (NB) Value

Wide Body (WB) Value 4.4 10.6 6.5 24

bw y yc yw yf *yi is lateral location of bi bf